Dane v. City of Santa Rosa CA1/2
This matter comes before us on remand from the California Supreme Court, which granted review of our previous nonpublished decision in this case, but deferred further action pending consideration and disposition in a case involving nearly identical facts and legal issues. (See Weatherford v. City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1241 (Weatherford).) In Weatherford, the Supreme Court interpreted Code of Civil Procedure 526a, under which certain individuals and corporations have taxpayer standing to pursue legal actions enjoining wasteful or illegal expenditures by government entities, holding that a person’s standing to sue under section 526a did not require payment of a property tax. (Weatherford, at p. 1245.) Instead, “[a]n allegation that the plaintiff has paid an assessed tax to the defendant locality is sufficient under section 526a.” (Ibid.) After issuing its opinion in Weatherford, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court for reconsideration in light
Comments on Dane v. City of Santa Rosa CA1/2