What is the Government Claims Act?

Useful Rulings on Government Claims Act

Recent Rulings on Government Claims Act

BETTY SCHILLING, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD Per the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for damages against a public entity must first file claim directly with that entity. The party may file a lawsuit only if the public entity denies or rejects the claim. (Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.) The claims presentation requirement provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide whether to pay on the claim. (Roberts v.

  • Hearing

JOHNSON VS CORONA POLICE

Plaintiff’s lawsuit is time-barred and jurisdictionally barred by plaintiff’s failure to comply with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. The evidence establishes that plaintiff’s criminal conviction arising from the incident is bars his claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477; Yount v. City of Sacramento (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 885, 893-894; Baranchik v. Fizulich (2017) 10 Cal. App. 5th 1210, 1220.

  • Hearing

KIAN MORADZADEH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

“The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes the limits of common law liability for public entities” and the Government Claims Act abolished all common law or judicially declared forms of liability for public entities. (Miklosy v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899.) Here, Plaintiffs has not alleged under what statute the City is liable. While the opposition was untimely and disregarded by the Court, the Court will address Plaintiff’s argument.

  • Hearing

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

“The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes the limits of common law liability for public entities, stating: “Except as otherwise provided by statute: (a) 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.” (Miklosy, supra, 44 Cal.4th at 899.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRITTANY GONZALES VS WILLARD MAYNARD ET AL.

Hence, the FAC fails to plead facts sufficient to establish Defendants waived their defense under the Government Claims Act. Estoppel. Plaintiff contends that Defendants should be estoppel from asserting Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. J.P. v.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL CASTRO VS FOSS MARITIME COMPANY ET AL

CCP §1038: CCP §1038 provides that in a proceeding under the Government Claims Act, the court may, upon motion and at the time of granting summary judgment, determine wither the plaintiff brought the proceeding with reasonable good cause and in the good faith belief that there was a justiciable controversy under the facts and law; if the court determines that the proceeding was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause, an additional issue shall be decided as to the defense costs.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KARLA GOMEZ, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

GCA Compliance Demurring Defendants’ second argument is that the Government Claims Act (GCA) bars Plaintiffs from asserting their first and seventh causes of action as against them and all causes of action as against Duenas and Slater. 1. New Causes of Action Demurring Defendants argue that the GCA bars the two new causes of action (first and seventh) because these causes of action are (1) time-barred and (2) not fairly reflected in Plaintiffs’ government claims. The Court disagrees for the most part.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

STEVEN PEISNER VS KECK HOSPITAL OF USC ET AL

Demurrer – Government Torts Claims Act A court may properly sustain a demurrer on the grounds when the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act where the plaintiff’s noncompliance is not excused. (Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1052, 1060-1064.) Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act. Therefore, the demurrer must be sustained. CONCLUSION The demurrer is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ASHFORD VS KENT

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. E. "Before suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity. (Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ASHFORD VS KENT

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. E. "Before suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity. (Gov.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JANE JG DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

“The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes the limits of common law liability for public entities, stating: “Except as otherwise provided by statute: (a) 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.” (Miklosy, supra, 44 Cal.4th at 899.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCES ACOSTA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ET AL.

Demurrer – Government Torts Claims Act A court may properly sustain a demurrer on the grounds when the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act where the plaintiff’s noncompliance is not excused. (Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1052, 1060-1064.) Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act. Therefore, the demurrer must be sustained. CONCLUSION The demurrer is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT KIRSCH, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

Because motions to strike, like demurrers, challenge the legal sufficiency of allegations in a complaint, claims not presented in compliance with the Government Claims Act are likewise subject to motions to strike. The paragraphs at issue are: 38. Prior to retiring, Plaintiff Garnica, as Plaintiff Lake’s supervisor, wrote Plaintiff Lake’s yearly evaluation and gave Plaintiff Lake a 5-star rating.

  • Hearing

YAMILET ROMO V. LARRY AUDET

Here, plaintiff argues that her December 2016 letter substantially complies with the requirements set forth in the Government Claims Act, making it a timely claim. Plaintiff bases this argument on the fact that the letter contains information to advise defendants that plaintiff had suffered injuries as a result of their negligence. However, nothing in the letter put LUSD on notice that plaintiff’s complaints would rise beyond an administrative action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ASATOUR SINANIAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Section 1038 provides, in pertinent part, that in a civil proceeding under the Government Claims Act, the court, upon motion of the defendant, shall, at the time of the granting of any summary judgment, determine whether or not the plaintiff brought the proceeding with reasonable cause and in the good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts and law which warranted the filing of the complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CARBAJAL VS BRODERICK

On its face, Plaintiffs have not pled compliance with the 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. (Government Code (GC) §§905, 905.2, 945.4.) To be timely, a government claim for damages for personal injury or personal property must be presented to the public entity within 6 months of the date the cause of action accrued; all other claims are within one year. (GC §§901, 911.2.)

  • Hearing

WILLIAM POWERS, JR. V. DONALD JENSEN, ET AL.

California Highway Patrol (20CVP-0020) On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a petition to file a late claim under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) Plaintiff made an unsuccessful attempt to recuse this Court (Hon. Linda D. Hurst; RJN, Ex. 28); and the matter remains pending. Thus, it has not been “finally determined adversely” to Plaintiff for purposes of section 391(b)(1). 6. William Powers, Jr. v.

  • Hearing

GLORIA WEISCHADLE VS LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT CHARBONEAU, ET AL.

Government Claims Act, Governmental Immunity, & Res Judicata The Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), formerly known as the Tort Claims Act, was enacted in 1963 to establish “a comprehensive codification of the law of governmental liability and immunity in California” (Farmers Ins. Group v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEPHANIE ALCANTARA VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

Demurrer – Government Torts Claims Act A court may properly sustain a demurrer on the grounds when the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act where the plaintiff’s noncompliance is not excused. (Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1052, 1060-1064.) Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act. Therefore, the demurrer must be sustained. CONCLUSION The demurrer is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Government Claims Act Compliance The City’s papers contain a fleeting reference to the Government Claims Act’s pre-filing requirements, and the City briefly argues (without explanation) that the Developers’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars their claims. (See Gov’t Code § 900 et seq.) Although the City does not develop this claim, the Developers (as the party bearing the burden of proof on step two) respond to it at some length, arguing Government Claims Act compliance was not required.

  • Hearing

DANIELLE DEBISE VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

In her opposition, Plaintiff states that she can further amend the TAC to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. The court therefore sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Government Claims Act Compliance The City’s papers contain a fleeting reference to the Government Claims Act’s pre-filing requirements, and the City briefly argues (without explanation) that the Developers’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars their claims. (See Gov’t Code § 900 et seq.) Although the City does not develop this claim, the Developers (as the party bearing the burden of proof on step two) respond to it at some length, arguing Government Claims Act compliance was not required.

  • Hearing

INFANGER V. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION, ET AL.

The Government Claims Act (Govt. Code, § 900, et seq.) provides that, with certain specified exceptions, a person seeking to sue the state or a local public entity for money or damages must first present a claim to the public entity. Generally, no suit for money or damages may be brought until a timely claim has been filed and acted upon by the public entity. (Govt. Code, § 945.4.)

  • Hearing

NILO SATVAT VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Demurrer – Government Torts Claims Act A court may properly sustain a demurrer on the grounds when the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act where the plaintiff’s noncompliance is not excused. (Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1052, 1060-1064.) Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act. (Compl., p. 2.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not comply with the Government Claims Act.

  • Hearing

ALBERTO GUTIERREZ VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ET AL.

Under the Government Claims Act, a plaintiff bringing suit for monetary damages against a public entity or employees must first present a claim to the public entity which must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the public entity. (Gov’t C. §§ 945.4, 950.2, 950.6(a).) To be timely, a claim for personal injury against a public entity must be presented within six months of the date the cause of action accrued. (Gov’t C. § 911.2.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 41     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.