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).
Claims are presented to a local public entity by either of the following means:
(Gov. Code § 915(a).)
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)
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.)
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)
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Riverside County, CA
“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.
Los Angeles County, CA
“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.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
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.
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
“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.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fresno County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Riverside County, CA
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.
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Orange County, CA
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.
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Orange County, CA
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.)
Orange County, CA
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.
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
San Joaquin County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
