Peeved at valet parking policy, past guest sues Beverly Hilton. (Law).

VALET parking fees too high? Try suing.

That's the tack Kathleen Riley took in an effort to get back the $48 she spent on parking after staying two nights at the Beverly Hilton two years ago.

The Nevada resident claims the hotel did not display its valet parking fees in accordance with Beverly Hills code.

Riley, in a suit filed on behalf of "tens of thousands of hotel patrons," says the hotel's signs displaying the $24 per night parking fees were too far away to see.

The action got the green light to proceed late last month after L.A. Superior Court Appellate Judge Carolyn Kuhl ruled that the hotel could have violated city codes. Kuhl's ruling overturns a lower court decision and sends the case back to lower court.

Riley is asking, that her $48 in parking fees be returned, plus 10 percent annual interest. The suit against Hilton Hotels Corp. was originally filed on Sept. 14, 2000. At the same time, she also sued The Peninsula Beverly Hills over similar claims in a case pending in L.A. Superior Court.

Six months after the suits were filed; Beverly Hills amended its city code to relieve hotels and restaurants from having to display valet parking fees, the suit says.

In the suit, Riley claims the amended codes were not retroactive and that the hotel should have displayed parking fees in the period until the amendments were made.

Her attorney, Edwin Schreiber at Schreiber & Schreiber Inc. in Encino, is representing another party who sued Sajahtera Inc., former owner and operator of the Beverly Hills Hotel, over similar claims in a case pending in appellate court in L.A.

Schreiber said the Hilton suit is filed on behalf of a class of hotel guests who stayed at the Beverly Hilton during the four and a half years before the city codes were amended. Neither suit has been certified as a class.

"We must have several hundred thousand people," Schreiber said. "All the lawsuit says is you had an obligation for four and a half years to tell people in advance what they were charged for parking."

Hilton executives did not return phone calls and its outside attorney, David Smith at McNamara Spira & Smith, declined comment. In court documents, however, Hilton said, "On its face, the claims are specious because plaintiff admits that there was a sign at the valet drop-off station, but claims it just was not conspicuous enough for her. In a strained effort to find some basis for liability, plaintiff bases her entire complaint on an alleged violation of the Beverly Hills municipal code which regulates signage at 'vehicle parking facilities."'

It also claims the amended Beverly Hills' city codes are retroactive.

A lower court judge agreed with Hilton, claiming the pre-amended and amended codes were retroactive. Kuhl's ruling found the amended codes were not retroactive.

Staff reporter Amanda Bronstad can be reached at [phone] ext. 225, or at [e-mail].