As demonstrated above, the legislative intent to preservelocal legislative power to establish reasonable procedures to govern tax refund claims is clear. A contrary reading of § 905, subd. (a) would run afoul of our Constitution and create a legal vacuum the Legislature never intended. Thus, Long Beach plainly had the power to adopt the ordinances in issue here and its construction of those ordinances to bar McWilliams’ putative class claim is reasonable and persuasive.

This conclusion is consistent with our holding in Oronoz andthe statements madeby the California Supreme Court regarding the issue in Volkswagen Pacific. 10 The City also cites Batt v. City and County ofSan Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65 (Batt) to support its position. Batt, however, relied primarily on Pasadena Hotelin its discussion of whether a municipal ordinance was a statute within . the meaning of section 905, subdivision (a). (Batt, at pp. 79, 83.)

Finally, the legislative intent of Long Beach’s telephone tax ordinanceis a legal matter in any event. -32- 113603.4 CONCLUSION iAppellant's purported class claim for a refund of Long Beach’s telephonetax is contrary to the ordinances that control here — ordinances enacted by the City, consistent with the Legislature’s intent in section 905, subd. (a) to preserve cities’ power to establish proceduresto govern claims for refundof local taxes. Respectfully, the City asserts this Court should find that the trial court properly concluded that Appellant’s class action allegationsfail as a matter of law andaffirm that court's ruling thatthis litigation cannot proceed as a classaction.

Vectren’s complaint vaguely alleges that: The letters of August 29 and October 12 satisfy Government Claims Act requirements of placing Alameda P&T on full notice that litigation might ensue if it did not perform the breached IS Agreement, thus facilitating investigation of the dispute and potential settlement without trial. See Cal. Gov’t. Code § 905, et seq., City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (December 3, 2007). Cmplt., at 12:5-9, ¶ 48.

Prior to bringing any lawsuit for damages, a potential plaintiff must first timely present a claim to the public entity and that claim must be rejected by that public entity. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945.

Plaintiff Acumen Communications, Inc.’s (“Acumen”) Claim for Damages to Person or Property filed with the City Clerk’s Office for the City of Glendora on January 7, 2015, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. This document constitutes Acumen’s tort claim against the city, which Acumen was required to file under California Government Code sections 905, et seq. before proceeding with the present lawsuit. See also SAC (ECF 1-11), ¶ 69.

Ct. App. 1993) ........................................................8 Westlands v. NRDC, 276 F.Supp.2d 1046 (E.D. Cal. 2003)..............................................................5 Statutory Authorities Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 ...................................................................................4 Cal. Gov. Code §§905 .................................................................................................5 Cal. Gov. Code §945.