Hotel guests brought putative class action against city, seeking declaratory judgment and writ of mandate and alleging that tourism marketing district assessment imposed on hotel stays was a disguised tax that violated Proposition 26 because it was never submitted to electorate for vote.
The Superior Court sustained city’s demurrer. Guests appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- Ordinance’s 30-day limitations period for commencing an action to challenge validity of a levied assessment did not violate due process;
- Limitations period was not equitably tolled by previous action challenging assessment;
- Continuous accrual doctrine did not apply to extend limitations period;
- Equal protection claim was not subject to strict scrutiny; and
- Reasonable argument could be made that action was not subject to 30-day limitations period, supporting finding that appellate arguments were not frivolous and thus not subject to sanctions.