What is the Government Claims Act?

Useful Rulings on Government Claims Act

Recent Rulings on Government Claims Act

PRESERVATION OF BENEFIT PLAN RETIREES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. V. CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL.

Specifically, Respondents argue that (1) a breach of 10 contract claim is mutually exclusive from an impairment of contract claim; (2) Petitioners 11 failed to comply with the Government Claims Act; (3) any contract claim against the 12 Board or City Manager fails as a matter of law; and (4) POBRA lacks standing to pursue 13 the purported contract claim. 14 In opposition, Petitioners contend that the case has always included—and currently 15 includes--a breach of contract claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

FABRICIO BUSTO ROMERO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

“‘In 1963, the Legislature enacted the comprehensive Government Claims Act, Government Code section 810 et seq. (the Act) eliminating all common law or judicially devised forms of government liability. Section 815, the cornerstone of the Act, declares that “Except as otherwise provided by statute . . . [¶] . . . [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer In demurring to each of the five causes of action asserted in the FACC, Cross- Defendants make the following arguments: (1) the FACC was not filed in compliance with the Government Claims Act, i.e., Government Code section 810, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

CASHIA LACRECIA KIRKSEY VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

This evidence satisfies Defendant’s burden, and Plaintiff neither opposes the motion nor proffers any evidence to suggest that she complied with the Government Claims Act. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment on this basis. In the alternative, the Court grants summary judgment based upon Defendant’s evidence that the staircase presented no dangerous condition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL

LAUSD contends Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action for whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 is barred as a matter of law for failure to timely comply with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA

Government Claims Act: A plaintiff must file a claim against a local public entity before a plaintiff may file an action for money or damages against the entity. (Gov. C. §§905, 905.2, 945.4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HA C. LU VS. LAURIE VAALA-OLSEN

Discussion To the extent Plaintiff is seeking damages for negligence, intentional tort, and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, he is required to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. “The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof based not only on tort liability, but on any claim for ‘money or damages.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ROBIN REID VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Defendants argue the TAC fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim that Reid complied with the Government Claims Act requirement of presenting a timely claim prior to bringing this cause of action. (Motion at p. 11.) Although California courts have found the legislative history on Labor Code section 1102.5 to be somewhat unclear, generally, an employee is required to exhaust his or her administrative remedies prior to pursuing a cause of action under section 1102.5. (Campbell v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JORGE AMBRIZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Applicable Law Under the Government Claims Act (“Act”), a plaintiff bringing suit for monetary damages against a public entity or employees thereof must first present a claim to the public entity (“government claim”) which must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the public entity. §§945.4, 950.2, 950.6(a). To be timely, a government claim for damages must be presented to the public entity within six months of the date the cause of action accrued. §911.2.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BENITEZ VS. MEDTRONIC, INC.

Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 648, 654, (courts cannot construe away procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act in deference to the Legislature's special solicitude to claims of injured minors because the Legislature manifested that solicitude in a statutory framework that includes those procedural requirements).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

MARLA MCDOWELL ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Government Tort Liability “The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes the limits of common law liability for public entities....” (Miklosy v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899; accord Forbes v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 48, 53.) A public entity may be liable, only if authorized by statute. (Gov. Code §815.) A public entity can assert any defense as if it were a private citizen and it can assert immunity when authorized by statute. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

DELSK GROUP LLC VS DENNIS GUTTIG

Discussion DAPO demurs to the SAC, arguing that (1) Plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the immunities granted by Government Code sections 815, 820.2, and 845.8; (3) Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act pursuant to Government Code § 905.2 and thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this action; (4) Plaintiff’s federal claims fail because they are untimely

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALLISON HANFORD VS DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS

Discussion DAPO demurs to the SAC, arguing that (1) Plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the immunities granted by Government Code sections 815, 820.2, and 845.8; (3) Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act pursuant to Government Code § 905.2 and thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this action; (4) Plaintiff’s federal claims fail because they are untimely

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CARLOS DANIEL VILLAMOR VS. SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Under the Government Claims Act, there is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; instead, such liability must be based on statute. Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887, 897.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALLISON HANFORD VS DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS

Discussion DAPO demurs to the SAC, arguing that (1) Plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the immunities granted by Government Code sections 815, 820.2, and 845.8; (3) Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act pursuant to Government Code § 905.2 and thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this action; (4) Plaintiff’s federal claims fail because they are untimely

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL., VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAL. STATE UNIV.

Fourth, the 3rd (legitimate business reason), 4th (Government Code §945.6—failure to comply with Government Claims Act, 6th (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) 9th through 16th (unclean hands, pre-existing injuries/conditions, failure to avoid or mitigate, offset, ratification, collateral source, immunity from punitive damages, waiver) and 22nd affirmative defenses are sufficiently pleaded (statute of frauds).

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADONIS CUTCHLOW VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Defendant argues that the cause is barred by the Government Claims Act because IIED and NIED are common law torts without a statutory basis. “Except as otherwise provided by statute: (a) A public entity is not liable for injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” (Gov’t Code § 815(a).) The Court finds that neither the Government Claims Act nor the workers’ exclusivity doctrine bar these claims.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARK L SCHAFER VS CITY OF STOCKTON

Courts have found that the Government Claims Act does not apply to actions for declaratory, injunctive, specific, or other nonmonetary relief. (See e.g. Minsky v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 113, 117, 121 [interpreting Claims Act]; Branciforte Heights, LLC v. City of Santa Cruz (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 914, 929-932 [same]; Hart v. County of Alameda (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 766, 782 [same]; Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 861, 869-870 [same]; Otis v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

THOMPSON VS. COFIROUTE USA, LLC

Government Claims Act Compliance OCTA and RCTC argue that the Court should not reach the merits of Thompson’s claims against them. Instead, their demurrer should be sustained because he failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act. (See Gov. Code § 810 et seq.) The agencies further argue that this defect cannot be cured, so leave to amend should be denied. The Court agrees, but only as to the second cause of action for statutory penalties.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

SKOGEBO VS. COFIROUTE USA, LLC

Government Claims Act Compliance OCTA and RCTC argue first that their demurrer should be sustained because Skogebo failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act. (See Gov. Code § 810 et seq.) The agencies further argue that this defect cannot be cured, so leave to amend should be denied. The Court agrees, but only as to the second cause of action for statutory penalties. The first cause of action for declaratory relief is not subject to the requirements of the Government Claims Act.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL., VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAL. STATE UNIV.

The 3rd (legitimate business reason), 4th (Government Code §945.6—failure to comply with Government Claims Act, 6th (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) 9th through 16th (unclean hands, pre-existing injuries/conditions, failure to avoid or mitigate, offset, ratification, collateral source, immunity from punitive damages, waiver) and 22nd affirmative defenses are sufficiently pleaded (statute of frauds). Defendant is only required to plead ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts, which it does.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WHITE V. WEBBY, ET AL.

Thus, because compliance with the Government Claims Act is required based on what is alleged in the Complaint, and Plaintiff has not alleged compliance or excuse from compliance, Webby’s demurrer must be sustained. (See Cornejo v. Lightbourne (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 932, 938 [stating that “filing a claim with a public entity pursuant to the [Government] Claims Act is a jurisdictional element of any cause of action for damages against the public entity”].)

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

WILLIAM CARLYLE V. CAL FIRE, ET AL.

To the extent, Plaintiff seeks leave to plead fraudulent concealment as rationale for his failure to the comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), the rationale is no longer necessary because there are no surviving claims which require compliance with the Government Claims Act (the “Act”). In addition to fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff raises Marsy’s Law (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28). Marsy’s Law does not create a private right of action. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

WILLIAM CARLYLE V. CAL FIRE, ET AL.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file a late claim under the Government Claims Act (the “Act”). According to the motion, Plaintiff seeks to file a claim against the County for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress due to actions taken by the Honorable Donald G. Umhofer and his court-appointed counsel, Carlie Peterson, in case number 17M- 12099.1 That case concerned misdemeanor charges filed against Plaintiff due to his use of a camper on his property in Cambria.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

SAMSUN DEAN VS TONYA HARRIS-STANSIL, M.D. ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a claim under the Government Claims Act on September 2, 2016 – which was over nine months following the date Plaintiff was informed by Dr. Harris-Stansil that she injured Plaintiff’s bladder during the surgery. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Claim was untimely.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.