BHA Investments, Inc. v. City of Boise, 141 Idaho 168

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court consolidated appeals concerning Boise's unauthorized liquor-license transfer fee. The court affirmed denial of class certification for BHA Investments and awarded the City attorney fees on that appeal. In the Bravo Entertainment appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of state-law claims but vacated dismissal of the federal Takings Clause claim, holding that the decision invalidating the City's fee applied retroactively and that no notice-of-claim or payment-under-protest requirement barred the federal claim.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that seventeen known entities located within Boise did not constitute a class so numerous that joinder was impracticable.
2. Because Boise lacked authority to impose the liquor-license transfer fee, its exaction of the fee constituted a taking of property under the United States and Idaho Constitutions.
3. BHA I applies retroactively to Bravo and Splitting Kings's pending case.
4. Bravo and Splitting Kings's state-law claims were barred because the applicable notices of claim were untimely or insufficient.
5. Idaho's notice-of-claim requirements did not bar Bravo and Splitting Kings's federal Takings Clause claim.
6. Payment under protest was not required to recover a fee that the City had no authority to impose.
7. Bravo and Splitting Kings were not barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the City identified no ordinance authorizing the city council to waive the unlawfully imposed transfer fee.
8. The City was entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees on BHA's appeal, but not fees against Bravo and Splitting Kings; Bravo and Splitting Kings were entitled to costs but not attorney fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying BHA's motion for class certification because seventeen known entities did not make joinder impracticable.
2. Whether Boise's unauthorized liquor-license transfer fee constituted a taking of property under the United States and Idaho Constitutions.
3. Whether BHA I applied retroactively to Bravo and Splitting Kings's pending claims.
4. Whether Bravo and Splitting Kings were required to comply with Idaho's notice-of-claim statutes.
5. Whether the fee had to be paid under protest to preserve a refund claim.
6. Whether Bravo and Splitting Kings failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
7. Whether the parties were entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded