Procedural Requirements

Under the Government Claims Act, the general rule is that any party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must first file claim directly with that entity; only if that claim is denied or rejected may the claimant file a lawsuit. (City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894 citing Gov. Code Secs. 905, 945.4; Gov’t Code Sec. 911.2; Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208.) Such a claim must be presented to the governmental entity no later than six months after the cause of action accrues. (Gov’t Code Sec. 911.2; Shirk, 42 Cal.4th at 208.) This provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and make a determination as to whether it will pay on the claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.)

Further, Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a) provides that any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action required to be brought as a claim pursuant to section 945.4 must be commenced:

If written notice is given in accordance with Section 913, not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail.

If written notice is not given in accordance with Section 913, within two years from the accrual of the cause of action.

(Gov. Code, Sec. 945.6(a).)

Government Code section 913 prescribes that when a public entity rejects a claim, it must send the claimant written notice and advise the claimant of the statute of limitations. That rejection notice, in turn, commences the six-month limitations period to file a lawsuit. (Gov’t Code Sec. 945.6(a)(1) & (2).) Absent notice of rejection, the limitations period is two years from accrual of the claim. (Gov’t Code Sec. 945.6(a)(1) & (2).)

Failure to timely file a tort claim renders the complaint subject to demurrer. (V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509, affirming trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend because V.C.’s failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act barred her action.)

A complaint subject to the Tort Claims Act must allege facts showing compliance with the act or allege facts excusing non-compliance. (State v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.)

“In general, no suit for money or damages may be maintained against a governmental entity unless a formal claim has been presented to such entity, and has been rejected (or is deemed rejected by the passage of time.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter 2019) ¶ 1:646.) Failure to comply with the claims statute bars the claim against the public entity. (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.)

Ordinarily, filing a claim with a public entity pursuant to the Claims Act is a jurisdictional element of any cause of action for damages against the public entity that must be satisfied in addition to the exhaustion of any administrative remedies (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 454; Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 861, 865; Richards v. Department of Alcoholic Beverages Control (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 304, 315, holding mere filing of claim does not satisfy need to exhaust remedy by applying for license before bringing suit]; see Ortiz v. Lopez (E.D.Cal.2010) 688 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1079– 1080; Creighton v. City of Livingston (E.D.Cal.2009) 628 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1221– 1222 [both holding that allegation of compliance with Claims Act insufficient without allegation of exhaustion of administrative remedy as well).

Means of Filing

Claims are presented to a local public entity by either of the following means:

1. Delivering it to the clerk, secretary or auditor thereof; or
2. Mailing it to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office.

(Gov. Code § 915(a).)

Claims Exempted from Presentation Requirement

There are certain types of claims in section 905 expressly exempted from the presentation requirement; otherwise, a court will infer a legislative intent to excuse compliance only where a claim is based on a statutory scheme with a ‘functionally equivalent claim process’ and a comparable scheme for administrative enforcement. (Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 763–764 [state civil rights actions lack such equivalency and are therefore not exempt from Claims Act; as a result, limitations period extended and action is timely]; accord, Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 367, 373, 383–385, [agency's violations of restrictions on disseminating personal information; Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civ.Code, § 1798 et seq.) does not have an administrative mechanism for enforcement of its provisions, and nothing gives agency notice that damages might be sought for noncompliance; thus failure to file claim bars action].) Such exceptions to the presentation procedure are rarely found. (Gatto, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 764.) (Cornejo v. Lightbourne (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 932, 938–39)

Pleading Requirements

Under the Government Claims Act, a public entity is not liable for an injury except as otherwise provided by statute. (Gov’t Code § 815; State ex rel. Department of California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1002, 1009.) Thus, all government tort liability must be based on statute. (Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.) In the absence of a constitutional requirement, public entities may be held liable only if a statute is found declaring them to be liable. (Id. at 932.)

Because all liability under the Government Claims Act is statutory, “the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity is applicable.” (Susman v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 809.) Thus, “to state a cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty.” (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School District (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.) “Since the duty of a government agency can only be created by statute..., the statute... claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be identified.” (Id. at 802.)

Statute of Limitations

Government Code section 900, et seq. “Suits against a public entity are governed by the specific statute of limitations provided in the Government Code, rather than the statute of limitations which applies to private defendants.” (Dominguez v. City of Alhambra (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 237, 244.)

“Under [Government Code] section 911.2, ‘[a] claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property... shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) of this chapter not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action...’ .... failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.” (State v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.)

“It is well settled that a public entity may be estopped from asserting the limitations of the claims statute where its agents or employees have prevented or deterred the filing of a timely claim by some affirmative act. [Citations.] Estoppel most commonly results from misleading statements about the need for or advisability of a claim; actual fraud or the intent to mislead is not essential. [Citation.]” (John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438, 445 (citations omitted).)

Even if Plaintiff were to file a petition under Government Code section 946.6 seeking relief from the claim presentation requirement, the one-year deadline to file a late-claim application is jurisdictional. (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1221; see Gov. Code Sec. 946.6(c).) 842 [“getting to the fire quickly is of the very essence of firefighting”].)

The doctrine of substantial compliance, in the context of the Government Claims Act, is normally raised where a timely but deficient claim has been presented to the appropriate public entity. (Santee v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 713)