Koret of Cal., Inc. v. City etc. of San Francisco

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: RATTIGAN; CHRISTIAN, J. and ELKINGTON
• Citation: 2 Cal.App.3d 87,81 Cal.Rptr. 698
• Decision Date: 27 October 1969
• Parties: KORET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 25990.

Page 698

81 Cal.Rptr. 698 2 Cal.App.3d 87 KORET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 25990. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California. Oct. 27, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1969.
Hearing Denied Dec. 17, 1969.

Page 699

[2 Cal.App.3d 88] Taylor & Winokur, San Francisco, for appellant.

Thomas M. O'Connor, City Atty., George E. Baglin, Deputy City Atty., San Francisco, for respondents.

[2 Cal.App.3d 89] RATTIGAN, Acting Presiding Justice.

Koret of California, Inc., a corporation and San Francisco property taxpayer, appeals from an adverse summary judgment entered in its action to recover property taxes paid under protest. The action, and the precedent events which underlie it, are direct consequences of the judgment which ordered issuance of a writ of mandate affecting the property assessment situation in San Francisco, and which we have this day affirmed in Knoff et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. (1 Cal.App.3d 184, 81 Cal.Rptr. 683). We refer to that decision (the 'Knoff decision') for all purposes relevant hereto.

Koret of California, Inc. (hereinafter 'plaintiff') commenced the action in October, 1967, against the City and County of San Francisco, Joseph E. Tinney as its assessor, its board of supervisors (as such and as its board of equalization) and its tax collector. The action sought recovery of protested taxes paid pursuant to deficiency assessments levied by the assessor upon plaintiff, in 1967, as 'escaped assessments' of its personal property for the tax years 1964--65, 1965--66 and 1966--67. The City and County (to whom we hereinafter refer in the singular as 'defendant') answered the complaint. Thereafter, both parties moved for summary judgment. Each motion was accompanied by a declaration in its support, to which the opposing party filed no counter-declaration in either instance. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion but granted defendant's; plaintiff appeals from the ensuing summary judgment entered in defendant's favor on the first, second and third (of four) causes of action set forth in the complaint. (Defendant's demurrer to the fourth cause of action was sustained without leave to amend; the fourth cause of action is not involved on the appeal.)

Plaintiff's position on the appeal is that the escaped assessments, upon the basis of which the protested taxes were paid, were void for various substantive reasons. Defendant, not meeting plaintiff's arguments on their merits, defendant the judgment upon the ground that the Knoff judgment required it. Neither party has advanced any argument...