As discussed in Woosley v. State of California (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 758, 788-790 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30, 838 P.2d 758, and Thomas v. City of East Palo Alto (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 1084, 1095 62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185, class-action-type lawsuits seeking a refund of fees and taxes are barred unless each plaintiff has first filed an administrative refund claim with the City. And, in non-class-action litigation, as here, the court lacks jurisdiction to order refunds to taxpayers who failed to file claims. (Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 449, 467 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 333). It is well settled that "a judgment may not be entered either for or against one who is not a party to an action or proceeding." ( Bronco Wine Co. v. Frank A. Logoluso Farms (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 699, 717 262 Cal. Rptr. 899). The Woosley decision and its progeny thus preclude the Association's attempt to recover taxes on behalf of taxpayers. It is thus unnecessary to determine: (1) if a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the Ordinance extended an existing tax to home-based businesses not previously taxed, which would thus mandate that the Ordinance satisfy the requirements of Proposition 218; (2) if, as the City contends, the uncontradicted relevant and admissible evidence established that the city clerk's enforcement of the tax ordinance as to persons working from their homes long predated enactment of the Ordinance.