## Facts

- Santa Cruz County provided local services in unincorporated areas through County Service Areas (CSAs) under the County Service Area Law (Gov. Code §§ 25210.1–25211.33).
- The statutory scheme authorized the County to levy parcel-specific service charges apportioned according to estimated benefits and required annual administrative steps, including preparing a parcel-by-parcel charge list and holding a public hearing before confirming charges (Gov. Code § 25210.77a).
- In 1984, a county taxpayer filed an action challenging CSA service charges for fiscal year 1984–1985, asserting (among other theories) that certain road maintenance CSAs improperly maintained private roads and that the County failed to comply with statutory and local procedural requirements for adopting and confirming charges.
- The 1984 action was tried and resulted in a dismissal on the merits, which was affirmed on appeal.
- In 1985, the same taxpayer filed a second action challenging CSA service charges for fiscal year 1985–1986, largely repeating the earlier allegations and adding a theory that the charges were “special taxes” requiring voter approval under the California Constitution.
- The trial court sustained the County’s general demurrer without leave to amend on res judicata grounds and entered a judgment of dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1984 judgment barred the 1985 action under res judicata and collateral estoppel applying California’s primary right doctrine.
2. Whether the 1985 complaint stated any non-precluded cause of action based on year-specific statutory or procedural defects for the 1985–1986 charges.
3. Whether CSA service charges authorized by statute were “special taxes” requiring voter approval or permissible service charges/fees.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the demurrer was properly sustained as to most claims because the later suit was barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel under the primary right doctrine.
- The court rejected the attempt to recharacterize the CSA service charges as “special taxes,” treating them as statutorily authorized service charges tied to benefits and not subject to voter approval requirements.
- The court identified two specific allegations asserting distinct, year-specific defects in the 1985–1986 charge process that were not precluded and were sufficient to proceed at the pleading stage.
- The judgment of dismissal was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings limited to those two non-precluded allegations; the demurrer otherwise remained sustained without leave to amend.

## Legal Principles

- Under California’s primary right doctrine, a final judgment precludes later litigation seeking relief for the same alleged injury, even if the plaintiff asserts new legal theories or additional remedies based on the same governmental charging scheme.
- Claim-splitting is barred: a plaintiff who litigates the validity of an assessment or service-charge scheme generally may not relitigate the same core challenge for a later period by reframing the legal label of the charge.
- Service charges imposed under the County Service Area Law and apportioned by estimated parcel benefit are treated as fees/charges for services rather than “special taxes” requiring voter approval.
- Preclusion does not reach genuinely new, post-judgment facts; discrete statutory noncompliance or procedural defects specific to a later fiscal year may support non-precluded claims and survive demurrer when adequately pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court largely applied res judicata to bar a повтор challenge to county service area charges and held the charges were valid service fees rather than voter-approved special taxes, but it allowed litigation to continue on two pleaded, year-specific defects in the later year’s confirmation process.


Frommhagen v. Bd. of Supervisors, 197 Cal. App. 3d 1292, 243 Cal. Rptr. 390 (Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1987)