Opinion
LILLIE, J.
The named plaintiffs, dispensing opticians, brought this class action for a refund of sales taxes paid to defendant by them and others “similarly situated” (unnamed plaintiffs). Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action in
favor of the unnamed plaintiffs; the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend only as to them; they declined to amend and judgment of dismissal was entered pursuant to section 581, subdivision 3, Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.
We accept as true the material allegations of the complaint under settled principles relating to demurrers. It alleges that the named plaintiffs are registered dispensing optical corporations doing business in California, they bring the action on behalf of themselves and all the unnamed plaintiffs similarly situated—all other registered dispensing opticians conducting business in California prior to July 1, 1971—a well defined community of interest in questions of law and fact exists between the named plaintiffs and the other members of the class and it is impracticable to bring all members of the class before the court as individual plaintiffs because they are numerous and located throughout the state; the action is brought under authority of section 6933, Revenue and Taxation Code, to recover sales taxes erroneously and unlawfully collected from all plaintiffs up to July 1, 1971; effective that date, section 6018 was amended to include plaintiffs in the group of medical practitioners deemed not to be retailers, and thus not thereafter obliged to pay sales taxes to defendant; prior thereto the assessment and collection of sales taxes was discriminatory and deprived plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws; on March 16, 1973, the named plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a claim for refund of sales taxes and interest thereon with defendant, and by written notices mailed May 16, 1973, defendant denied their claim in full; named plaintiffs seek specific refund amounts and 6 percent interest thereon, and each member of the class seeks refund in an amount according to proof, with interest thereon, upon receipt of which refunds, they will return the taxes to their respective customers.
According to the minute order, the demurrer was sustained on the single ground that the complaint contained “no allegation that such other [unnamed] plaintiffs have filed claims as required by law. Otherwise demurrers overruled.” Although sections 6902 and 6905, Revenue and Taxation Code, make the filing of a claim for a refund of
sales taxes with defendant mandatory,
and section 6932 bars any court action for such refund unless such claim is timely filed with defendant, we nevertheless conclude the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
The complaint alleges that the named plaintiffs filed a claim with defendant in behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and attached thereto, incorporating therein, a document filed with defendant commencing, “The named claimants . . . respectfully claim in behalf of themselves and in behalf of all others similarly situated (specifically, all other registered dispensing opticians conducting business in the State of California) a refund for sales taxes illegally collected. ...” Respondent argues that a claim form which does not expressly identify a claimant by his correct name and account number and fails to set forth the specific amount of the refund fails to meet the statutory requirements for a proper claim.
A similar contention was rejected by the Supreme Court in
City of San Jose
v.
Superior Court,
12 Cal.3d 447 [115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701], involving a class suit wherein named plaintiffs had filed a claim for themselves and on behalf of other class members pursuant to section 910, Government Code,
which
unlike section 6902
or any of its
related sections
patently requires specific identification of each claimant. “We conclude ‘claimant,’ as used in section 910, must be equated with the class itself and therefore reject the suggested necessity for filing an individual claim for each member of the purported class. To require such detailed information in advance of the complaint would severely restrict the maintenance of appropriate class actions—contrary to recognized policy favoring them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382; see also
Vasquez
v.
Superior Court, supra,
4 Cal.3d 800.) We do not believe the claims statutes were intended to thwart class relief.
“Moreover, treating the class as claimant is consistent with treatment of the class for purposes of filing the complaint. While section 422.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to name the ‘parties,’ it is settled the pleading need only establish the existence of an ascertainable class rather than name each member of the class.
(Daar
v.
Yellow Cab Co.
(1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 706 [63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732].)
“Thus, to satisfy the claims statutes, the class claim must provide the name, address, and other specified information concerning the
representative
plaintiff and then sufficient information to identify and make ascertainable the class itself. Because such information would meet the statutoiy requirements of name and address,
any
effort to identify the class would satisfy the
some compliance
test. Beyond this, the sufficiency of the identifying information must be measured by the
substantial compliance test.
“It is
therefore clear a class claim may satisfy the claims statutes requirements.” (P. 457.)
Respondent attempts to distinguish
City of San Jose
on the ground that it concerns a claim for nuisance and inverse condemnation, while this is a claim for refund of sales taxes; but it is a distinction without a difference. It also cites
Bozaich
v.
State of California,
32 Cal.App.3d 688 [108 Cal.Rptr. 392], a class action to recover moving and relocation expenses on behalf of eveiy person who had been required to move in
connection with eminent domain proceedings brought by the state; but
Bozaich
is distinguished in
City of San Jose:
“Language indicating a contrary conclusion [to ours] in
Bozaich
v.
State of California, supra,
32 Cal.App.3d 688, must be read in light of that court’s limitation of its holding in its footnote 5, page 699,
recognizing the possibility of proper class claims.” (P. 457, fn.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
LILLIE, J.
The named plaintiffs, dispensing opticians, brought this class action for a refund of sales taxes paid to defendant by them and others “similarly situated” (unnamed plaintiffs). Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action in
favor of the unnamed plaintiffs; the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend only as to them; they declined to amend and judgment of dismissal was entered pursuant to section 581, subdivision 3, Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.
We accept as true the material allegations of the complaint under settled principles relating to demurrers. It alleges that the named plaintiffs are registered dispensing optical corporations doing business in California, they bring the action on behalf of themselves and all the unnamed plaintiffs similarly situated—all other registered dispensing opticians conducting business in California prior to July 1, 1971—a well defined community of interest in questions of law and fact exists between the named plaintiffs and the other members of the class and it is impracticable to bring all members of the class before the court as individual plaintiffs because they are numerous and located throughout the state; the action is brought under authority of section 6933, Revenue and Taxation Code, to recover sales taxes erroneously and unlawfully collected from all plaintiffs up to July 1, 1971; effective that date, section 6018 was amended to include plaintiffs in the group of medical practitioners deemed not to be retailers, and thus not thereafter obliged to pay sales taxes to defendant; prior thereto the assessment and collection of sales taxes was discriminatory and deprived plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws; on March 16, 1973, the named plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a claim for refund of sales taxes and interest thereon with defendant, and by written notices mailed May 16, 1973, defendant denied their claim in full; named plaintiffs seek specific refund amounts and 6 percent interest thereon, and each member of the class seeks refund in an amount according to proof, with interest thereon, upon receipt of which refunds, they will return the taxes to their respective customers.
According to the minute order, the demurrer was sustained on the single ground that the complaint contained “no allegation that such other [unnamed] plaintiffs have filed claims as required by law. Otherwise demurrers overruled.” Although sections 6902 and 6905, Revenue and Taxation Code, make the filing of a claim for a refund of
sales taxes with defendant mandatory,
and section 6932 bars any court action for such refund unless such claim is timely filed with defendant, we nevertheless conclude the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
The complaint alleges that the named plaintiffs filed a claim with defendant in behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and attached thereto, incorporating therein, a document filed with defendant commencing, “The named claimants . . . respectfully claim in behalf of themselves and in behalf of all others similarly situated (specifically, all other registered dispensing opticians conducting business in the State of California) a refund for sales taxes illegally collected. ...” Respondent argues that a claim form which does not expressly identify a claimant by his correct name and account number and fails to set forth the specific amount of the refund fails to meet the statutory requirements for a proper claim.
A similar contention was rejected by the Supreme Court in
City of San Jose
v.
Superior Court,
12 Cal.3d 447 [115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701], involving a class suit wherein named plaintiffs had filed a claim for themselves and on behalf of other class members pursuant to section 910, Government Code,
which
unlike section 6902
or any of its
related sections
patently requires specific identification of each claimant. “We conclude ‘claimant,’ as used in section 910, must be equated with the class itself and therefore reject the suggested necessity for filing an individual claim for each member of the purported class. To require such detailed information in advance of the complaint would severely restrict the maintenance of appropriate class actions—contrary to recognized policy favoring them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382; see also
Vasquez
v.
Superior Court, supra,
4 Cal.3d 800.) We do not believe the claims statutes were intended to thwart class relief.
“Moreover, treating the class as claimant is consistent with treatment of the class for purposes of filing the complaint. While section 422.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to name the ‘parties,’ it is settled the pleading need only establish the existence of an ascertainable class rather than name each member of the class.
(Daar
v.
Yellow Cab Co.
(1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 706 [63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732].)
“Thus, to satisfy the claims statutes, the class claim must provide the name, address, and other specified information concerning the
representative
plaintiff and then sufficient information to identify and make ascertainable the class itself. Because such information would meet the statutoiy requirements of name and address,
any
effort to identify the class would satisfy the
some compliance
test. Beyond this, the sufficiency of the identifying information must be measured by the
substantial compliance test.
“It is
therefore clear a class claim may satisfy the claims statutes requirements.” (P. 457.)
Respondent attempts to distinguish
City of San Jose
on the ground that it concerns a claim for nuisance and inverse condemnation, while this is a claim for refund of sales taxes; but it is a distinction without a difference. It also cites
Bozaich
v.
State of California,
32 Cal.App.3d 688 [108 Cal.Rptr. 392], a class action to recover moving and relocation expenses on behalf of eveiy person who had been required to move in
connection with eminent domain proceedings brought by the state; but
Bozaich
is distinguished in
City of San Jose:
“Language indicating a contrary conclusion [to ours] in
Bozaich
v.
State of California, supra,
32 Cal.App.3d 688, must be read in light of that court’s limitation of its holding in its footnote 5, page 699,
recognizing the possibility of proper class claims.” (P. 457, fn. 5.) Respondent also argues it is impossible to act on a claim for refund filed on behalf of a group of unnamed class members where no specific amount is claimed; but a similar contention was rejected in
Javor
v.
State Board of Equalization,
12 Cal.3d 790 [117 Cal.Rptr. 305, 527 P.2d 1153]. The Supreme Court in reversing a judgment of dismissal against class suit plaintiffs also seeking sales tax refunds from defendant, said: “The exact amount of this sales tax overage can be easily ascertained from the books and records of the retailers.” (P. 797.) Obviously defendant could determine the specific identity of each unnamed plaintiff and the amount of his sales tax payments from its own files.
Respondent’s unsupported declaration that class actions are not permitted by statute in state tax refund matters, is completely negated in
Javor
v.
State Board of Equalization,
12 Cal.3d 790 [117 Cal.Rptr. 305, 527 P.2d 1153], “Under the circumstances, suffice it to say after an examination of the complaint that it states sufficient facts to constitute a class action under section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure since there is (1) ‘an ascertainable class’ and (2) ‘a well defined community of interest in the question of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented.’
(Daar
v.
Yellow Cab Co., supra,
at p. 704;
Vasquez
v.
Superior Court
(1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808-810 [94 Cal.Rptr. 796, 484 P.2d 964.)
“The complaint before us alleges an ascertainable class of multitudinous consumer-purchasers of the described vehicles during the approximate four-month period, all of whom according to later developments have paid a sales tax based on the amount of the refunded federal excise tax and now no longer entitled to be retained by the state. . . . The questions of law and fact are common to all members of the class. If a class suit were not permitted a multiplicity of actions will be necessary in order to effectuate recovery by the individual purchasers. Since in many instances, the small amount involved may discourage an individual action as economically impractical, the state would be unjustly enriched, if a class suit were not permitted. (Compare
Daar, supra,
at pp. 713-715.)” (Pp. 796-797.) The one case cited by respondent,
Henderson
v.
Carter
(1972) 229 Ga. 876 [195 S.E.2d 4], was decided upon the ground of sovereign immunity pursuant to an express Georgia statute different from that of California.
Totally specious is respondent’s further argument that the class suit is improper in that the additional requirement of a community of interest in the
issues of fact
(§ 382, Code Civ. Proc.)
is not met because each unnamed plaintiff is entitled to recover a different amount. The complaint alleges existence of a well defined community of interest in questions of law and fact between the named plaintiffs and the other class members. The mere fact that ultimately each class member will be required to establish his individual amount of damages does not preclude the maintenance of a class action.
(Collins
v.
Rocha,
7 Cal.3d 232, 238 [102 Cal.Rptr. 1, 497 P.2d 225];
Vasquez
v.
Superior Court, 4
Cal.3d 800, 815 [94 Cal.Rptr. 796, 484 P.2d 964, 53 A.L.R.3d 513];
Stilson
v.
Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc.,
28 Cal.App.3d 270, 274 [104 Cal.Rptr. 581].)
Respondent’s additional suggestion that a class suit seeking a refund of sales taxes would work a disadvantage to the judicial process and the litigants is also answered in
Javor:
“If a class suit were not permitted, a multiplicity of actions will be necessary in order to effectuate recovery by the individual purchasers.” (P. 797.) Similarly,
Javor,
by permitting such an action, destroys respondent’s argument that because a suit may lead
to the disclosure of the amount of sales tax each unnamed plaintiff had paid, it would nullify the “absolutely privileged” confidentiality of this information granted by section 7056, Revenue and Taxation Code.
Throughout, respondent has taken the position that the unnamed plaintiffs did not qualify as “claimants” under the claims sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code. On the other hand, it separately contends that they were claimants but claimants whose claims had never been disallowed by it in writing thus, under section 6934, Revenue and Taxation Code, the complaint filed less than six months from the filing of the claims was premature. Accepting as true the allegation in the complaint that “By written notices mailed on May 16, 1973 ... defendant notified plaintiffs it had denied their claim in full,” we conclude that the complaint was timely filed pursuant to section 6933.
The order of dismissal is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer in its entirety.
Wood, P. J., and Hanson, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 12, 1975, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 11, 1975.