### NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A s lip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders . F or example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “un published” o pinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court decisions : the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of the court. The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes of the official reports . Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports ) of the revi sed opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports

. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official r eports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JOSHUA PENNER and TODD McKELLIPS, No. 57134

- 0

- II individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated,

Appellants,

v. PUBLISHED OPINION CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY and STATE OF WA S HINGTON, Respondents.

P RICE , J.

— Joshua Penner 1 appeals the superior court ’ s order granting summary judgment in favor of Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the State ( collectively Sound Transit) based on the doctrine of res judicata as a result of previous litigation asser ting the same claims

. The superior court also decided, in the alternative, that stare decisis and the statute of limitations barred Penner ’ s claims. On appeal, Penner argues that res judicata do es not apply because he was not a party to the previous litigation

. He also claims the superior court ’ s alternative holdings were in error. We disagree and affirm.

1 Joshua Penner and Todd McKellips are both r epresentatives in a proposed class action and will be referred to collectively as “ Penner. ” Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two March 21, 2023No. 57134

- 0

- II

2 FACTS
I. B ACKGROUND F ACTS In 1992, the legislature authorized the most populous counties in th is state to create a local agency to plan and implement a “high capacity transportation system.” Black v. Cent. Puget Sound Reg ’ l Transit Auth ., 195 Wn.2d 198, 201, 457 P.3d 453 (2020) ( Black I ) (quoting E NGROSSED S UBSTITUTE H

. B

. 2610 , at 2, 52d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1992)). Using this authority, King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties voted in 1993 to create Sound Transit “to address traffic congestion in the central Puget Sound region

. ” Pierce County v. State , 159 W n .2d 16, 2 1 , 148 P.3d 1002 (2006) ( Pierce County II ) ; Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 202. In 1996, v oters in those counties approved a motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) to fund bus services and rail lines through Sound Transit. Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 202. MVETs are calculated by a depreciation schedule based on the vehicle ’ s value, set out by stat ute. Id. ; former RCW 82.44.041 (1990)

. Voters authorized a 0 .3 percent MVET. At the time, the MVET utilized a depreciation schedule created by the legislature in 1990 , which calculated the value of a vehicle based on its age. Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 216 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting). A depreciation schedule is a table that determines the MVET a vehicle owner must pay based on the years of service of the vehicle and the latest purchase price of a vehicle , which reduces as the vehicle ages . RCW 82 .44.035. As detailed below, the legislature and voters have changed the depreciation schedule several times over the past twenty years, thus changing the MVET amount required to be paid by vehicle owners.No. 57134

- 0

- II

3

In 1998, voters approved Referendum 49 (1999 de preciation schedule) , 2 which went into effect in 1999

. The 1999 depreciation schedule repealed the then

- effective 1996 depreciation schedule by reducing the taxable value of certain vehicles

. Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 216 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)

. The next year, in 1999, Sound Transit issued $350 million in bonds (Sound Transit Bonds) to initially finance its projects, pledging revenues from sales tax and the MVET in place in 1996 , as modified by the 1999 depreciation schedule, for payment of the b onds

. Id. at 202. The bonds will expire in 2028. Id. ; see also Pierce County II , 159 W n .2d at 2 5

. Also in 1999, voters approved Initiative 695 (I

- 695) , 3 which was intended to reduce motor vehicle tabs to $30. Pierce C ou nty. v. State , 150 Wn.2d 422, 4 4 7, 78 P.3d 640 (2003) (hereinafter Pierce County I ) ; Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 216 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)

. The initiative purported to repeal all MVETs and corresponding depreciation schedules , including the 1999 depreciation schedule. Black I , 19 5 Wn.2d at 216 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting). Our Supreme Court held I

- 695 was unconstitutional in its entirety in 2000. Amalg

. Transit Union Loc

. 587 v.
State , 142 Wn.2d 183, 257, 11 P.3d 762 , 27 P.3d 608 (2000). But in 2000, before the Supreme Court ’ s opinion was finalized, the legislature enacted portions of I

- 695, including repealing the statewide MVET and allowing local entities to collect the MVET under specific conditions. Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 216 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting).

2 In 1998, the legislature passed Engrossed House Bill (EHB) 2894, ( L AWS OF 1998, ch. 321); EHB 2984, § 4 was referred to the voters as part of Referendum 49.

3 L AWS OF 2000 , ch. 1, § 3

.No. 57134

- 0

- II

4

Two years later, in 2002, voters approved Initiat iv e 776 (I

- 776) , which was also intended to limit motor vehicle tabs

. Pierce County I , 150 Wn.2d at 427. However, I

- 776 also purported
to repeal the use of MVETs for transit funding, repeal the depreciation sc hedule used to calculate the MVET , and den y Sound Transit ’ s authority to collect and levy MVETs , which were central to funding the bus and rail systems and repaying its bonds. Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 202. In 2006, in Pierce County II , our Supreme Court declared these portions of I

- 776 related to Sound Transit unconstitutional , holding the portions violated article I, section 23 of the Washington Constitution through the improper impairment of contracts , specifically the contracts with the bondholders

. 1 59 W n .2d at 27, 51

. Also in 2006, just prior to the Pierce County II decision , the legislature passed S UBSTITUTE S.B. 6247, codified as RCW 82.44.035 (2006 depreciation schedule) , to provide statutory guidance to all local jurisdictions with authority to use MVETs to calculate the correct values , since I

- 776 had purported to repeal the MVETs

. F INAL B. R EP
. ON S UBSTITUTE S.B. 6247 , at 1, 59th Leg. Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2006). Th is legislat ion enacted new depreciation values used to calculat e the
MVETs

. Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 218 (Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)

. In 2010, in an attempt to “streamline and make technical amendments” to the vehicle registration statutes and in response to Pierce County II , the legislature passed S enate B ill 6379, which amended RCW 81.104.160 (2010 statute)

. L AWS OF 2010, ch . 161 , § 1; Black I, 195 Wn.2d
at 202

. The previous 2006 depreciation schedule still applied to the MVET. See F INAL B

. R EP
.
ON S.B. 6379 , 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2010)

. However, b ecause of the Pierce County II holding, t he 2010 statute apparently attempted to exclude the Sound Transit B onds from the application of the 2006 depreciation schedule. Se e former RCW 81.104.160 (2010). But insteadNo. 57134

- 0

- II

5

of referring to the 1999 depreciation schedule then being used by Sound Transit , the statute referred to the repealed 1996 schedule

. See former RCW 81.104.160 (2010). In 2015, the legislature again amended RCW 81.104.160 ( 2015 statute) and still generally imposed the 2006 depreciation schedu le on MVETs but, once again, attempted a carve out for the Sound Transit B onds

. But like the 2010 statute , the 2015 statute referred to the 1996 laws, not the 1999 depreciation schedule. Former RCW 81.104.160(1) (2015)

. II. B LACK L ITIGATION In 2018, a group of taxpayers, including Taylor Black (Black) , filed a complaint against Sound Transit and the State , arguing the 2015 statute was unconstitutional under article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution because it did not restate in full any depreciation schedules referenced in the statute

. Black I , 195 Wn.2d at 203

. Shortly before oral argument, the State filed a notice that Sound Transit had been applying the 1999 depreciation schedule instead of the depreciation schedule in place in 1996 that was referenced in the 2015 statute. Id. at 204. The Black I c ourt determined Sound Transit ’ s notice was irrelevant to the case, stating , “ [B] ecause Sound Transit ’ s actions d [id] not have any bearing on the constitutionality of the MVET statute itsel f, this notice d [id] not impact [their] holding. ” Id

. The court then concluded that the 2015 statute did not violate article II, section 37 of the Washington C onstitution because it was a complete act and “ d [ id ] not render [] other existing
statute s erroneous . . . .” Id. at 214.
In 2020 , after the Black I decision , Black filed a motion for reconsideration , arguing Sound Transit ’ s admitted use of the 1999 depreciation schedule in face of the 2015 statute ’ s requirement to use the 1996 depreciation schedule violated article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution

.No. 57134

- 0

- II

6

Black asked the court to vacate its decision in Black I and remand the case for consolidation with Blac k ’ s second complaint , which was to be filed imminently . The court denied the motion for reconsideration. Within days of filing his motion for reconsideration b ased on Sound Transit ’ s use of the 1999 depreciation schedule, Black filed his second complaint , a proposed class action, against Sound Transit and the State ( Black II ) , 4 alleging 19 causes of action, including seeking to recover tax refund payments and an injunction to prevent Sound Transit ’ s use of the 1999 depreciation schedule , a s well as challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 and 2015 statutes

. Sound Transit moved for summary judgment at the superior court , arguing Black ’ s complaint was barred by the holdings in Black I and Pierce County II

. Sound Transit also argued res judicata applied to the constitutionality claims in Black II since the Black I court ’ s de nial of Black ’ s motion to reconsider was a final judgment

. Finally, Sound Transit argued the three

- year statute of limitations had run on any refund claims that were based on the 2010 and 2015 statute s . Black responded that his claims were not barred b y Black I and Pierce County II , nor did the statute of limitations apply to his claims

. The superior court in Black II granted Sound Transit ’ s motion for summary judgment, agreeing with Sound Transit that the lawsuit was precluded by Black I and Pierce County II 5 and

4 Black alleged he had standing because he was a taxpayer of the region where Sound Transit operated and paid, at some point, the MVET.

5 In Black II , the superior court specifically stated , “I am going to grant the motion for summary judgment from [Sound Transit] . . . . I do accept and agree with your argument that the lawsuit is precluded by the [ Black I ] case, as well as the case referred to as P ierce County II . . . .” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 664

.No. 57134

- 0

- II

7

res judicata applied to the constitutionality claims

. T he superior court also ruled that the tax refund claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the reasoning of Black I also applied to bar th ose claims. The superior court further ruled that Black was not entitled to an injunction

. Given its ruling s , the superior court in Black II ruled any discovery issues were moot. Black initially appealed the Black II summary judgment dismissal to this court, but then later vol untarily dismissed the appeal

. III. P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY Following Black ’ s voluntary dismissal of the Black II appeal , Penner , 6 with representation from the same attorneys who represented Black, filed a new proposed class action lawsuit against Sound Transit in 2021

. Penner ’ s complaint was identical to Black II ’ s complaint, including the identical causes of action; only the names of the parties changed. The lawsuit alleg ed the same
exact 19 causes of action as Black did , including seeking a return to the taxpayers of tax proceeds obtained by Sound Transit ’ s misapplication of the MVET depreciation schedule ( causes of action 1, 8, 16, and 17) , challeng ing the constitutionality of the 2010 and 2015 statutes and the 2015 statute ballot title (causes of ac tion 2

- 7, 9

- 15) , and s eeking an injunction to bar Sound Transit from applying the 1999 depreciation schedule (causes of action 18

- 19)

. Sound Transit again moved for summary judgment

. Pointing to the superior court’s
decision in Black II , Sound T ransit argued Penner ’ s complaint should be dismissed due to res judicata because Penner and Black shared a “unity of interest” as taxpayers with identical claims and Black II was binding precedent . CP at 734

- 35. Alternatively, Sound Transit argued that the

6 Like Black, Penner alleged he has standing because he is a taxpayer and a resident of the region where Sound Transit operates and, accordingly, paid the MVET at some point.No. 57134

- 0

- II

8

tax refund claims were moot and nonjusticiable ; res judicata, collateral estoppel, and stare decisis (from Pierce County II and Black I ) barred the constitutionality claims ; and the ballot title claim was untimely and nonjusticiable. Penner responded that r es judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply because Penner was not a party to the Black II litigation and no taxpayer “ unity of interest ” doctrine existed in this
context

. CP at 759. As for the alternative arguments, Penner responded that the subject matter and cause s of action in the Penner litigation differed from the Black I litigation because Black I only challenged the constitutionality of the statute under article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution . Penner finally argued that stare decisis from Black I and Pierce County II did not apply, nor was Black II binding, and he was entitled to discovery. The superior court granted Sound Transit ’ s motion for summary judgment, finding all claims were barred under res judicata because of the final decision in Black II . The court further ruled , apparently in the alternative, that the tax refund and 2015 constitutionality claims were precluded by stare decisis from Black I and Pierce County II , the tax refund claims were barred by the statute of limitations, 7 and the 2010 constitutionality claims were time barred and moot. The court also determined the ballot title claims w ere nonjusticiable and untimely, and that Penner forfeited his claim because he did not defend the merits.
Penn er sough t discretionary review of the superior court ’ s ruling with our Supreme Court, which the court denied. Penner then appealed to this court.

7 The superior court exp ressly adopted the reasoning for the stare decisis and statute of limitation rulings from the Black II oral hearing.No. 57134

- 0

- II

9 ANALYSIS
I. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW We review summary judgment rulings de novo. M.E. v. City of Tacoma , 15 Wn. App. 2d 21, 31, 471 P.3d 950 (2020) , review denied , 196 Wn.2d 1035 (2021) . “Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Id

. The reviewing court should view “the facts and the reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Michak v. Transnation Title Ins. Co. , 148 Wn.2d 788, 794, 64 P. 3d 22 (2003). We may affirm the superior court ’ s summary judgment ruling on any ground supported by the record. Pac. Marine Ins. Co. v. Dep ’ t of Revenue , 181 Wn. App. 730, 737, 329 P.3d 101 (2014).
I I

. R ES J UDICATA Penner argues res judicata do es not apply to his case because he was not in privity with any party to the Black II litigation as required for the doctrine to apply

. Sound Transit responds that Penner and Black share a common public interest as taxpayers ; therefore , they are in privity for res judicata purposes. We agree with Sound Transit

. A. L EGAL P RINCIPLES We review an application of res judicata de novo. Lynn v. Dep ’ t of Lab

. & Indus. , 130 W n . App. 829, 837, 125 P.3d 202 (2005). “ ‘ The doctrine of res judicata rests upon the g round that a matter which has been litigated, or on which there has been an opportunity to litigate, in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, should not be permitted to be litigated again. It puts an end to strife, produces certainty as to individual rights, and gives dignity and respect to judicialNo. 57134

- 0

- II

10

proceedings. ’ ” Marino Prop. Co. v. Port Comm ’ rs , 97 W n .2d 307, 312, 644 P.2d 1181 (1982) (quoting Walsh v. Wolff

, 32 W n .2d 285, 287, 201 P.2d 215 (1949)). Res judicata attempts to prevent piecemeal litigation and supports the finality of judgment. Spokane Rsch

. & Def

. Fund v. City of Spokane , 155 W n .2d 89, 99, 117 P.3d 1117 (2005) ; s ee also Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co. , 71 Wn.2d 392, 395, 429 P.2d 207 (1 967) (“Res judicata [is] . . . designed to . . . curtail multiplicity of actions and harassment in the courts . . . .”); In re Recall of Fortney , 199 Wn.2d 109, 124, 503 P.3d 556 (2022) (“[W]e will not subject an elected official to answer the same charges each time a different citizen is willing to put their name on a recall petition.”). Res judicata requires a valid and final judgment on the merits in a previous suit. Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp. , 151 W n .2d 853, 865, 93 P.3d 108 (2004). Summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits. DeYoung v. Cenex Ltd. , 100 W n . App. 885, 892, 1 P.3d 587 (2000) , review denied, 146 W n .2d 1016 (2002)

. The party asserting res judicata bears the burden of proof. Hisle , 151 W n .2d at 865

.

“ Res judicata prev ents relitigation of the same claim where a subsequent claim involves the same (1) subject matter, (2) cause of action, (3) persons and parties, and (4) quality of persons for or against the claim made.” Harley H. Hoppe & Assocs

. v. King C ou nty , 162 Wn. App. 40, 51, 255 P.3d 819, review denied , 172 Wn.2d 1019 (2011); see also Weaver v. City of Everett , 194 Wn.2d 464, 480, 450 P.3d 177 (2019)

.No. 57134

- 0

- II

11

Penner focuses on the third element, argu ing res judicata does not apply because he was not a party nor was he in privity to a party in the Black II litigation. 8 A review of the caselaw shows that there is an exception to this third element that may be applicable in certain cases for plaintiffs that share a common public interest. Generally, f

or a party to be the same persons or part ies for res judicata purposes , they must have the same identities as the parties from the previous litigation

. See Neighbors v. King C ou nty , 15 Wn. App. 2d 71, 79, 479 P.3d 724 (2020) (finding the parties in both litigations were the same because “[t]he four identities here are the same”). Although identity of the parties is typically strict under this element, “ ‘ nominally different parties ’ ” may be precluded from bringing subsequent claims if the parties “ ‘ have sufficien tly identical interests to satisfy the identity of parties ’ inquiry ’ because they possess ‘ the same legal interests as all citizens of the state. ’ ” In re Election Contest Filed by Coday , 156 Wn.2d 485, 501, 130 P.3d 809 (2006) (internal quotation marks o mitted) (quoting In re Recall of Pearsall

- Stipek , 136 W n .2d 255, 261, 961 P.2d 343 (1998)) , cert
. denied , 549 U.S. 976 (2006)

. “ ‘ Identity of parties is not a mere matter of form, but of substance. . . . [P]arties nominally different may be, in legal effe ct, the same. ’ ” Rains v. State , 100 Wn.2d 660, 664, 674 P.2d 165 (1983) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins , 310 U.S. 381, 402, 60 S. Ct. 907,
84 L. Ed. 1263 (1940)). Historically, even if the plaintiffs were not the same persons, Washington courts have applied res judicata to cases involving common public rights if the plaintiffs shared identities as

8 Penner does not argue on appeal that the superior court erred in finding this case and Black II had the same subject matter, cause of action, or quality of persons for or against the claim made.No. 57134

- 0

- II

12

taxpayer s . See State ex rel. Forgues v. Superior Ct

. of Lewis County , 70 W ash . 670, 673

- 74, 127 P. 313 (1912). In Forgues , a relator filed suit against the Centralia c ity c lerk , alleging a petition prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages was void because certain elector voters who signed a petition did not properly st ate where they lived or their post office address es . Id. at 671. The court stated,

“ A judgment for or against a municipal corporation, in a suit concerning a matter which is of general interest to all the citizens or taxpayers thereof, as the levy and collection of taxes, or public contracts or other obligations, or public property, its title, character or boundaries, is binding, not only on the municipality and its officers, but also upon such citizens or taxpayers, in so far as concerns their rights o r interests as members of the general public . . . . [A] judgment between certain residents or taxpayers and the municipality may be conclusive on all other citizens similarly situated, and where an action between individuals concerns public interests or r ights, and the municipality is represented in the litigation by its proper officers and takes part in the prosecution or defense of the action, it is estopped by the result ”

. Id. at 673

- 74 ( quoting , 23 C YC
. Judgments 1269 (1906))

. The court determined th e issues in the relator ’ s case were previously determined in an earlier case, both plaintiffs sued in their capacity

as taxpayers , and any remed ies w ould be common to both relators. Id. at 674

- 75. Therefore, the Forgues court barred the relator’s claim o n the basis of res judicata. Id.
But res judicata in this context only applies if the cause of action is common to all taxpayers and is not dependent on rights particular to the specific plaintiff. I n In re Assessment for Local Imp rovement Sewer Dist. No. 1 of City of Chehalis , 84 W ash . 565, 147 P. 199 (1915) ( Summersett ), a constructor of sanitary sewers appealed a decision which set aside and cancelled special assessments levied on certain properties

— levies which the constructor claimed h e was due. Id . at 566

. The appellant argued that the decision was error because a previous suit found the city wasNo. 57134

- 0

- II

13

required to pay the levies and res judicat a should have compelled the same result in his case

. Id

. at 569

- 70 . The court rejected the argu ment, stat ing : [A] final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction for or against a municipality , adjudicating a matter of general concern to its citizens and taxpayers , is binding alike upon the municipality and all of its citizens and taxpa yers in so far as there is thereby adjudicated such matter of general concern . . .

. [I]t must be remembered that he is not by such a judgment precluded from asserting any right which he holds as an individual peculiar to himself, and which he does not sh are with the public. Id . at 571. Accordingly, the Summerse t t court decided property owners were not barred by res judicata to challenge certain assessments because they each had individual rights to have their property valued, which they did not share i n common with others. Id . at 576 (“We conclude that the judgment of the superior court for Lewis C ounty, which was affirmed by this court in the mandamus case requiring the city commission to proceed with the levying of assessments, was not, and could not have bee n , res judicata of the rights of Summersett

. . . in so far as the question of benefits and apportionment thereof is concerned.”)

. Recent Washington courts have used similar rationale to Forgues to bar claims on res judicata grounds in cases involving voters , even though the parties in the second litigation were not identical to the parties in the previous litigation. See Coday , 156 Wn.2d at 50 2

- 03 ; Pearsall

Stipek , 136 Wn.2d at 261 (court applying res judicata to a nonparty claim in an elect ion recall

c ase ) ; Fortney , 199 Wn.2d at 124

- 26 (court applying res judicata to a nonparty claim in election recall c ase ) ; Snyder v. Munro , 106 Wn.2d 380, 721 P.2d 962 (1986) (court applying res judicata to nonparty claims because , as citizens of the state, plaintiffs had their interests properly represented in previous litigation that included major political parties and state officials)

.No. 57134

- 0

- II

14

In the case of Coday , our Supreme Court held that a plaintiff was barred by res judicata in

a n election contest clai m because “ her interest [was] identical to that of the [previous suit she was not a party to] and of all citizens of the state: ensuring a fair, just, and accurate election. She [was] , therefore, an identical party

. . . for res jud icata purposes. ” 156 Wn.2d at 50 2. The Coday decision discussed four different plaintiffs who were challeng ing the election of Governor Gregoire on four different grounds. Id . at 488. Of the four plaintiffs, only one, Karr, was barred by res judicata b ecause her asserted grounds were identical to previous litigation against the governor’s election

. Id . at 501

- 02

. Notably, the Coday court exp lained it only appl ied res judicata against Karr ’ s claims because the parties in the previous litigation had adequate representation and a “significant stake in the outcome of the contest and invest [ed] significant resources in pursuing all viable grounds for the contest .” Id . at 502 n.4. In other words, res judicata applied only in “substantially identical

con tests.” Id . The court specifically cautioned that res judicata should not apply if the previous litiga nts did not have adequate represent ation

. Id

. Washington courts have applied Coday ’ s reasoning in other contexts, such as public records requests. S ee H

oppe , 162 Wn. App. at 51

- 53. In H oppe , a company , Harley H. Hoppe & Associates, Inc. , filed a public records request, which King County refused to fulfill

. Id. at 46

- 47

. The case ended when the superior court granted King County ’ s summary judgment motion

. Id

. at 47. Later, Hoppe ’ s employee , who was also the daughter of Hoppe’s owner , filed an identical public records request, and was again denied. Id

. at 48. Although Hoppe and the employee were not identical parties, the Hoppe court applied res judicata, stating , “ [T]he same reasoning [as Coday ] applies here in the public records act context; any member of the public has standing to bring such a public records request. We hold that

. . . [Hoppe ’ s employee ] is in sufficient privityNo. 57134

- 0

- II

15

with Hoppe to satisfy the concurrence of identity inquiry and thus meets the third and fourth elements of a res judicata analysis.” Id

. at 51

- 52

. But courts have been careful to limit the reach of Coday ’ s holding. For example, Division Three of this cou rt did not extend Coday ’ s reasoning to two different Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) claims because the interests of the two plaintiffs were not sufficiently similar. Stevens County. v. Futurewise , 146 Wn. App. 493, 505, 192 P. 3d 1 (2008) , review denied , 165 Wn.2d 1038 (2009) . There, a county resident filed a petition for review of Title 13 of a Stevens County ordinance

. Id . at 500

- 01. Futur e wise then later filed its own petition with the Board for review of Title 13. Id . at 501. The court found that the “ various citizens and citizen groups challenged Title 13 as it affected their particular interests ,” and therefore, “[t]hese various parties, including Futurewise in the most recent petition, did not have sufficiently ident ical legal interests to trigger the [ Coday ] voter exception to the privity requirement.” Id

. at 505 (emphasis added).
B. A PPLICATION Penner argues that applying the Coday exception to cases outside of the election context is an unprecedented expansion unsupported by the case law and is inferior to class action litigation under CR 23

. As seen above, Coday ’ s reasoning has already extend ed beyond election recall cases. Bu t the reasoning should be only applied in limited situations. Combining Forgues , Summersett , and Coday with their progeny , we hold that the common public interest exception for res judicata should only appl y when the interests of the parties are both identical and of a clearly public nature and , importantly, there has been adequate representation

.No. 57134

- 0

- II

16

Applying th is standard here, Penner ’ s claims are properly barred by res judicata. First, the interests involved here are both public and identic al. In Black II , Black asserted standing because he was a taxpayer of the region where Sound Transit operated and paid , at some point, the MVET

. Penner alleges standing on the exact same basis. In addition, the y both allege the same common public intere st: to ensure the constitutionality of the statutes enacted in this state and a return of proceeds “to taxpayers

. ” Indeed, there is nothing unique or different between Penner ’ s interests and Black ’ s interest s , unlike the litigants in Summersett and Futurewise . Penner also asserts the exact same issues and claims as Black as a taxpayer in the Sound Transit region

— in fact, Penner ’ s complaint is substantively identical to Black ’ s complaint, with only differences in the formatting of the document.
Se cond, neither party has alleged that Black had inadequate representation in the earlier Black II litigation. Without question, Penner cannot reasonably make such an argument because the lawyers for both parties are the same. Thus, the two aspects of Coda y ’ s reasoning, identical

common public interest and adequate representation, are met. Moreover, a pplying res judicata in this context is appropriate . For example, its application prevent s “serial litigation” that is of concern in the Coday line of cases

. Similar to election recall petitions at issue in Coday , unless it has the doctrine of res judicate available, Sound Transit could be forced to defend multiple cases with the exact same claims where plaintiffs ’ interests were adequately represented previ ously . This would wast e not only public funds but also court

resources. Penner contends applying res judicata here would erode many of the safeguards that exist
in class action litigation , relying on due process concerns discussed in the federal case, Taylor v.No. 57134

- 0

- II

17

Sturgell , 553 U.S. 880, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 171 L. Ed. 2d 155 (2008). For example, Penner argue s that a class action would allow individual members to determine for themselves whether they choose to be bound by the outcome of the litigation, wherea s a common public interest exception for res judicata would unfairly bind those individuals

. But class actions are only appropriate if it “ is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. ” CR 23(b)(3). And here, it has not been shown that a class action is necessarily a superior form of litigation to a declarat ory judgment action with application of the common public interest exception for res judicata. Indeed, the doctrine of res judic ata in this context has its own elements that provide protection for future litigants, like requiring the same cause of action , same subject matter , and a final decision

. And the additional requirements derived from Coday of identical common public intere st and adequate representation provide further protection to the taxpayers who are not actual litigants. 9 Here, looking at the four requirements for res judicata

— (1) subject matter, (2) cause of action, (3) persons and parties, and (4) quality of person s for or against the claim made

— the doctrine appropriately bars Penner ’ s claims after the final decision in Black II . With identical

9 Penner ’ s reliance on Taylor for its position is unpersuasive. Taylor is a federal case that does not discuss or apply Washington law. Further, in a p ortion of its decision, the Taylor court rejected the application of a federal “public law” exception to privity of parties for res judicata for the Freedom of Information Act requests based, in large part, on the fact that the relief was specific to indiv iduals and would not have inured to the benefit of the public. 553 U.S. at 902

- 03. But here, as previously explained, a successful challenge to the 2015 statute would likely result in relief to all persons who paid the Sound Transit MVET in Washington, n ot just individual refund s to Penner or Black. The Taylor court also explained that in claims involving the “public law” exception in federal law (conceptually similar common public interest issues discussed in Coday ), “ ‘the States have wide latitude t o establish procedures [limiting] the number of judicial proceedings that may be entertained

. ’ ” Id. at 902 (alteration in original) (quoting Richards v. Jefferson C ou nty, Ala. , 517 U.S. 793, 803, 116 S. Ct. 1761, 135 L. Ed. 2d 76 (1996)).No. 57134

- 0

- II

18

complaints between Penner and Black, the subject matter and causes of action are the same. The defendant, Sound Transit, is the same. And, consistent with the reasoning in Coday , because Black was adequately represented , had a significant stake in the outcome of the litigation , and invested significant resources in pursuing all viable grounds for the litigation , the common public interest taxpayer exception to the same party requirement is met

. See Coday , 156 Wn.2d at 50 2 n.4. The superior court did not err by applying res judicata to bar Penner ’ s claims.
CONCLUSION
Penner ’ s claims are barred by res judicata from the Bl ack II litigation

. Accordingly, we do not reach Penner ’ s remaining arguments

. We affirm the superior court ’ s decision granting summary judgment to Sound Transit

.

P RICE , J. We concur:

M AXA , P.J.

V ELJACIC , J.