Government Claims Act in California

Demurrer by Defendant Midway Community Services District to Third Amended Complaint for Failure to Allege Compliance with Government Claims Act, and for Failure to Allege a Statutory Basis for Liability and Uncertainty The demurrer by defendant, Midway Community Services District, to the third amended complaint, for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff was only granted leave to amend the complaint to add allegations of compliance or excuse for non-compliance with the Government Claims Act. The Court further notes that even if Plaintiff had leave to add a section 1983 cause of action, Plaintiff would still be required to allege compliance or excuse for non-compliance under the Government Claims Act for Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim against Defendant.

Government Claims Act, uncertainty, and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Indeed, the Court would not have jurisdiction to consider the Petitioner given the failure to com ply with the prerequisites of the Government Claims Act. Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1767, 177879. Furthermore, the Petition does not alter the allegations of the Complaint, which fail to allege any compliance with the Government Claims Act. Accordingly, the Court sustains the General Demurrer based on non-compliance with the Government Claims Act.

HEARING ON PETITION IN RE: RELIEVING HIM FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT FILED BY: MYRICK-BUSTOS, ISIDRO *TENTATIVE RULING:* The unopposed motion for relief from the requirements of the government claims act is granted.

As there is no dispute that Plaintiff has not complied with the Government Claims Act, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The City argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because he did not file a written claim for damages with the City related to this lawsuit in compliance with the Government Claims Act. “Under the Government Claims Act, a person may not sue a public entity for personal injury unless he or she presents a timely written claim for damages to the public entity.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1233.)

Government Claims Act The Government Claims Act requires that a claim must be presented to the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code § 911.2(a).) A plaintiff must first file a government claim with the relevant government entity before bringing a lawsuit against a public employee. (Gov. code §§ 945.4, 950.2; Watson v. State of California (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 836, 843.) Compliance with the Government Claims Act must be pled by Plaintiff.

Re: Failure To Comply With Government Claims Act. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with the claim requirement of the Government Claims Act. However, as pointed out by Plaintiff in the Opposition, claims by public employees for wages are exempt from the Government Claims Act.

Demurrer Analysis Defendant City argues that the complaint is subject to demurrer because Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show compliance with the Government Claims Act. 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. Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act and to allege one or more viable causes of action. Defendant shall give notice.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act and to allege one or more viable causes of action. Defendant shall give notice.

Juan Deltoro Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Juan Del Toro and Defendant Delhi Unified School District for failure to comply with Government Claims Act The Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Juan Del Toro and Defendant Delhi Unified School District for failure to comply with Government Claims Act is DENIED.

Generally, no suit for money or damage may be brought against a government entity unless and until a timely claim has been presented pursuant to the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 810 et. seq.) and either acted upon or deemed rejected by the passage of time. (Gov. Code §§ 945.4, 950.2, 912.4; DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 989-990.) The matter was continued to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to show compliance with the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff did not do so.

Government Claims Act The Government Claims Act establishes certain conditions that must be met prior to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. ( California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4 th 1581, 1591.) Primarily, a claim must be presented to a local public entity prior to filing suit. (Gov. Code §915(a).)

On August 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Supplement the Record with Prior Notice of Compliance with the Government Claims Act. On October 22, 2025, the State filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. II. DISCUSSION As best the court can tell, Plaintiff moves to supplement the record by way of judicial notice, with a Notice of Compliance with the Government Claims Act. The Notice was filed with this court on March 14, 2025.

The complaint fails to allege negligence with sufficient specificity, is uncertain, and does not allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. Defendant requests that the demurrer be sustained without leave to amend because plaintiff cannot allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. Whether plaintiff can so amend involves a factual matter not proper for consideration on a demurrer. On the face of the pleading, the Court is aware only that Paragraph 9 of the form complaint is not checked.

In addition, a plaintiff must allege facts showing compliance with or excuse from the Government Claims Act; the failure to do so is grounds for demurrer. (Shirk v. Vista Unified School District (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 superseded by statute on a different ground in Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903.) Here, no facts are plead to indicate compliance with the Government Claims Act. Sustained. Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subd.

Demurrer of City and LAUSD: Government Claims Act Both Defendants City and LAUSD demurrer to the complaint on grounds that Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts showing that Plaintiff has complied with the Government Claims Act. (See Def. City Demurrer, at pg. 3-5; Def. LAUSD Demurrer, at pg. 6-8.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s claims against them are barred by the statute of limitations under the Government Claims Act.

Thus, these omissions from the claim are enough to find Plaintiff did not comply with the Government Claims Act. Further, even if Plaintiff had shown “some compliance with all the statutory requirements,” the claim still did not “substantially comply” with the Government Claims Act.

The Government Claims Act A petition for relief under Government Code section 946.6 is a special proceeding in which a petitioner seeking to file a civil action against a public entity asks the court for relief from the Government Claims Act requirements. (Gov. Code, § 946.6; Jefferson v. County of Kern (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 606, 612, fn. 16.)

First, Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act claims presentation requirements. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to allege that she timely submitted her claim to the County and whether she timely filed this action after that claim was rejected. Even if plaintiff can allege that she filed a claim with the County, Plaintiff failed to allege a statutory basis for liability as required by the Government Claims Act.

Since Foothill Transit is a public entity, claims against it must comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act. ( See Gov. Code, §§ 905, 910, 954.4.) Tucker argues that Foothill Transits rejection of his government claim was defective, so he is excused from the requirements of the Government Claims Act. (Opp., p. 3.)

District Attorney’s Office of Merced County Demurrer by Defendant District Attorney’s Office of Merced County to First Amended Complaint for Failure to Allege Compliance with the Government Claims Act or an Exception Thereto, Failure to Establish and Exception to Government Immunity under Government Code § 821.6 and § 815.6, and Failure to State a Statutory Basis for Liability for Injury Inflicted by Plaintiff on himself.

Under the Government Claims Act, Plaintiff may not maintain an action for damages against a public entity unless a written claim has first been presented to the public entity and rejected. (Government Code sections 900.4, 905, 910, 911.2, 945.4) Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff’s Complaint is also uncertain, disorganized, and unintelligible. (Khoury v.

FEHA exemption from Government Claims Act As noted by Plaintiff, plaintiffs asserting claims under FEHA for violation of its terms need not comply with the Government Claims Act. Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1985) 173 Cal. app. 3d 701, 710-11. This is because FEHA contains its own administrative remedies process that must be exhausted. This process meets the goals of the Government Claims Act. Id. at 712; Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal. app. 3d 861, 868-69.

While Plaintiffs argue that compliance with the Government Claims Act does not apply to equity claims, this entirely ignores the fact that Plaintiffs seek monetary damages against Defendants here. ( See Complaint, Prayer for Relief) Moreover, the Court agrees that on its face, Plaintiffs DFEH Complaint falls short of what is required by the Government Claims Act, and Plaintiffs have not alleged facts which could show compliance with the DFEH Exhaustion Requirement.

The Petition for Relief from the Requirements of the Government Claims Act is ADVANCED to this date and CONTINUED to November 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C. All briefs shall be filed and served in accordance with the new hearing date. Moving party to give notice.

Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act, commencing at Government Code section 910. Amendment would be futile. Accordingly, defendant shall prepare a judgment of dismissal.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act.

Government Claims Act The Government Claims Act provides that no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity&until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon... (Gov. Code § 945.4.) Under the Government Claims Act, a plaintiff must present any claim for damages against the government before bringing a civil action. ( See Gov. Code § 905; City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 737-738.)

Government Claims Act The Government Claims Act requires that a claim must be presented to the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code § 911.2(a).) A plaintiff must first file a government claim with the relevant government entity before bringing a lawsuit against a public employee. (Gov. code §§ 945.4, 950.2; Watson v. State of California (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 836, 843.) Plaintiff must plead compliance with the Government Claims Act.

As there is nothing on the face of the complaint or judicially noticed documents demonstrating Defendant is a public entity, the motion generally cannot be granted on the ground that Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. However, Plaintiff indicates in the opposition that Plaintiff inadvertently failed to check the box indicating the Government Claims Act has been complied with. (Opposition, p. 2: 7-9.)

Defendants motion to strike is based on the grounds that (1) Plaintiffs new filed suit is improper because the causes of action were previously demurred to in the First Action, and (2) Plaintiffs complaint violates the Government Claims Act. As with the demurrer, these claims rely on the Court taking judicial notice of the contents of the court records beyond their existence, which is improper. ( Williams , supra , 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 130, fn. 7.)

However, it appears that Defendants Policies and Procedures set forth a grievance procedure separate from and independent of the Government Claims Act. Thus, the Protest and Appeal of Protest submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant in accordance with Defendants own grievance procedure regarding its acquisitions does not satisfy or displace the claim presentation requirement under the Government Claims Act.

However, state notice-of-claim statutes such as the Government Claims Act do not apply to actions brought under federal law in state court. ( Felder v. Casey (1988) 487 U.S. 131, 153 ( Felder ).) Here, Plaintiff brings suit against Defendant seeking $200,000 in monetary damages. Defendant is a public entity to which the Government Claims Act applies. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 130050, 130202.)

Under the Government Claims Act, Plaintiff may not maintain an action for damages against a public entity unless a written claim has first been presented to the public entity and rejected. (Government Code §§ 900.4, 905, 910, 911.2, 945.4.) Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff’s Complaint is also uncertain, disorganized, and unintelligible. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)

That the filing simultaneously satisfies FEHA notice requirements does not preclude it from also complying with the Government Claims Act. Defendant previously challenged the same Labor Code claim on summary judgment by similarly arguing that Plaintiff did not comply with the Government Claims Act. The Court rejected this argument due to the fact that Plaintiff served a notice of complaint and notice of right to sue from the DFEH and a claim for damages form . . . . (Aug. 11, 2021 Order re MSJ 8:19-25.)

Government Claims Act The County demurs to the first and second causes of action based on the Government Claims Act. "The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. As relevant here, a plaintiff must timely file a claim for money or damages with the public entity." (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1219.) Personal injury claims be presented within six months of accrual. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)

Even so, Plaintiff contends the filing of her complaint with the Board provides the necessary notice and substantially complies with the Government Claims Act.

Ruling Sustain the demurrer without leave to amend as Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act.

Here, the Complaint fails to allege any facts showing Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act or was excused from doing so. This is grounds to sustain the Demurrer since Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to the Government Claims Act because he is suing a public entity and public employee. Uncertainty. CCP §430.10(f) establishes that a pleading that is “uncertain” is subject to demurrer, defining “uncertain” to include “ambiguous and unintelligible.”

The Appeal Court held that the plaintiff’s allegation that she “ ‘complied with applicable claims statutes’ is reasonably interpreted as meaning the claim was timely” and that “the ultimate fact of compliance with the claims presentation requirement in the Government Claims Act can be pled using a general allegation.” (Id., at 554-555, fn. 4.) Here, Plaintiff generally alleges compliance with the Government Claims Act. (Compl. ¶ 9.) This is sufficient for pleading purposes.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs complaint fails because Plaintiff did comply with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. The California Legislature passed AB 218 in 2019; that statute amended the Government Claims Act to exempt from the claim presentation requirements [c]laims made pursuant to Section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault regardless of the date the wrongful conduct occurred.

Claims Presentation Requirements Under the Government Claims Act Defendant contends its demurrer to the Complaint should be sustained without leave to amend, because Plaintiff has not and cannot plead compliance with the claims presentation requirements under the Government Claims Act. The parties do not dispute that Defendant is a public entity.

Government Claims Act First, Respondent argues that Petitioners second cause of action is barred for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act as Petitioner did not indicate in its government claim that he intended to file a civil cause of action in addition to a petition for writ of mandate and that Petitioner was seeking actual damages [1] . (Demurrer, at pp. 12-14.)

Government Claims Act First, Respondent argues that Petitioners second cause of action is barred for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act as Petitioner did not indicate in its government claim that he intended to file a civil cause of action in addition to a petition for writ of mandate and that Petitioner was seeking actual damages [1] . (Demurrer, at pp. 12-14.)

GOVERNMENT CLAIM PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT Per the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must present a written claim directly with that entity. (Gov. Code, § 905.)

Here, the complaint fails to allege any facts showing Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act or was excused from doing so. This alone is grounds to sustain the Demurrer since Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to the Government Claims Act because he is suing both the public entity and public employees. In addition, the judicially noticed government claim shows that Plaintiff cannot overcome the identified pleading deficiency.

Moving Defendant argues that the portion of AB 218 that retroactively exempts childhood sexual abuse claims from the Government Claims Act is unconstitutional with respect to public entities and constitutes an impermissible gift of public funds. Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a substantive prerequisite to stating a claim for money damages against a public entity. ( See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-41.)

Moving Defendant argues that the portion of AB 218 that retroactively exempts childhood sexual abuse claims from the Government Claims Act is unconstitutional with respect to public entities and constitutes an impermissible gift of public funds. Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a substantive prerequisite to stating a claim for money damages against a public entity. ( See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-41.)

Moving Defendant argues that the portion of AB 218 that retroactively exempts childhood sexual abuse claims from the Government Claims Act is unconstitutional with respect to public entities and constitutes an impermissible gift of public funds. Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a substantive prerequisite to stating a claim for money damages against a public entity. ( See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-41.)

Moving Defendant argues that the portion of AB 218 that retroactively exempts childhood sexual abuse claims from the Government Claims Act is unconstitutional with respect to public entities and constitutes an impermissible gift of public funds. Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a substantive prerequisite to stating a claim for money damages against a public entity. ( See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-41.)

Moving Defendant argues that the portion of AB 218 that retroactively exempts childhood sexual abuse claims from the Government Claims Act is unconstitutional with respect to public entities and constitutes an impermissible gift of public funds. Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a substantive prerequisite to stating a claim for money damages against a public entity. ( See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-41.)

Moving Defendant argues that the portion of AB 218 that retroactively exempts childhood sexual abuse claims from the Government Claims Act is unconstitutional with respect to public entities and constitutes an impermissible gift of public funds. Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a substantive prerequisite to stating a claim for money damages against a public entity. ( See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-41.)

Failure to allege timely compliance with the Government Claims Act renders the complaint defective and subject to a general demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (State v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240.) Here, plaintiff has alleged a claim for breach of contract against a government entity, namely the Golden Plains Unified School District.

While plaintiff checked the box for compliance with the Government Claims Act, he did not provide any facts relating to this compliance. This is important as “[t]he facts underlying each cause of action pleaded in the complaint must fairly reflect those set forth in the claim as the basis of plaintiff's liability. If the facts do not fairly reflect the claim, the complaint is vulnerable to demurrer.” (/bid. at § 8:48.)

While plaintiff checked the box for compliance with the Government Claims Act, he did not provide any facts relating to this compliance. This is important as “[t]he facts underlying each cause of action pleaded in the complaint must fairly reflect those set forth in the claim as the basis of plaintiff's liability. If the facts do not fairly reflect the claim, the complaint is vulnerable to demurrer.” (/bid. at § 8:48.)

While plaintiff checked the box for compliance with the Government Claims Act, he did not provide any facts relating to this compliance. This is important as “[t]he facts underlying each cause of action pleaded in the complaint must fairly reflect those set forth in the claim as the basis of plaintiff's liability. If the facts do not fairly reflect the claim, the complaint is vulnerable to demurrer.” (/bid. at § 8:48.)

While plaintiff checked the box for compliance with the Government Claims Act, he did not provide any facts relating to this compliance. This is important as “[t]he facts underlying each cause of action pleaded in the complaint must fairly reflect those set forth in the claim as the basis of plaintiff's liability. If the facts do not fairly reflect the claim, the complaint is vulnerable to demurrer.” (/bid. at § 8:48.)

While plaintiff checked the box for compliance with the Government Claims Act, he did not provide any facts relating to this compliance. This is important as “[t]he facts underlying each cause of action pleaded in the complaint must fairly reflect those set forth in the claim as the basis of plaintiff's liability. If the facts do not fairly reflect the claim, the complaint is vulnerable to demurrer.” (/bid. at § 8:48.)

While plaintiff checked the box for compliance with the Government Claims Act, he did not provide any facts relating to this compliance. This is important as “[t]he facts underlying each cause of action pleaded in the complaint must fairly reflect those set forth in the claim as the basis of plaintiff's liability. If the facts do not fairly reflect the claim, the complaint is vulnerable to demurrer.” (/bid. at § 8:48.)

While plaintiff checked the box for compliance with the Government Claims Act, he did not provide any facts relating to this compliance. This is important as “[t]he facts underlying each cause of action pleaded in the complaint must fairly reflect those set forth in the claim as the basis of plaintiff's liability. If the facts do not fairly reflect the claim, the complaint is vulnerable to demurrer.” (/bid. at § 8:48.)

The demurrer to third Amended Complaint and to each cause of action therein is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allege: (1) a statutory basis for each claim made, (2) Facts establishing satisfaction of the Government Claims Act, (3) Fact Pleading around the Statute of Limitations Defense appearing on the face of the Third Amended Complaint, and (4) pleading around statutory immunity. Any Fourth Amended Complaint shall be filed by April 1, 2025.

Defendant is a public entity and therefore Plaintiff was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act before filing suit. The Government Claims Act requires a written claim must first be presented to the public entity before any suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.

Defendant is a public entity and therefore Plaintiff was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act before filing suit. The Government Claims Act requires a written claim must first be presented to the public entity before any suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.

Defendant is a public entity and therefore Plaintiff was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act before filing suit. The Government Claims Act requires a written claim must first be presented to the public entity before any suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.

Defendant is a public entity and therefore Plaintiff was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act before filing suit. The Government Claims Act requires a written claim must first be presented to the public entity before any suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.

Defendant is a public entity and therefore Plaintiff was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act before filing suit. The Government Claims Act requires a written claim must first be presented to the public entity before any suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.

Defendant is a public entity and therefore Plaintiff was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act before filing suit. The Government Claims Act requires a written claim must first be presented to the public entity before any suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.

Defendant is a public entity and therefore Plaintiff was required to comply with the procedural requirements of the Government Claims Act before filing suit. The Government Claims Act requires a written claim must first be presented to the public entity before any suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 946.

Furthermore, under the Government Claims Act, Plaintiffs whistleblower retaliation claims are limited to those accruing no more than six months prior to the filing of Plaintiffs government claim form. The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. As relevant here, a plaintiff must timely file a claim for money or damages with the public entity. . . .

Therefore, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend so Plaintiff may allege compliance with the Government Claims Act requirements. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: December 10, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I.

Government Claims Act Compliance Required (Answer ¶ 50.) Adequate Remedy at Law (Answer ¶ 30.) The court grants the motion with respect to the following affirmative defenses for the following reasons: Answer ¶ 50 The Government Claims Act does not apply to CPRA requests Answer ¶ 30 This is not a viable defense in a CPRA action.

The face of the Complaint demonstrates that Plaintiff has not complied with the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act prior to filing the Complaint. Plaintiff is given leave to amend, if he can do so in good faith, to plead that he has met the requirements of the Government Claims Act, including Government Code sections 910 and section 915(e). See DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal 4th 983, 991-992.

Defendant District argues that the portion of AB 218 that retroactively exempts childhood sexual abuse claims from the Government Claims Act is unconstitutional with respect to public entities and constitutes an impermissible gift of public funds. Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a substantive prerequisite to stating a claim for money damages against a public entity. ( See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-41.)

Failure to Plead Compliance with the Claims Presentation Requirements of the Government Claims Act and a Statutory Basis for Public Entity Liability There is no dispute that HACCC is a public entity subject to the Government Claims Act. (Cal. Gov. Code, §§ 810, 811.2.)

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are allowed to plead compliance with the claims presentation requirement in the Government Claims Act using a general allegation.  (Esparza v Kaweah, supra). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has adequately pled compliance with the Government Claims Act. (Government Code section 945.4). The demurrer on this ground is therefore overruled.

The Complaint is otherwise devoid of any allegations demonstrating compliance with the Government Claims Act prior to the filing of this action. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Defendant EDD because Plaintiff did not comply with the Government Claims Act. Because the Court has sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, the motion to strike portions of the complaint is MOOT.

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint’s Eighth Cause of Action for Harassment based on Disabilities is OVERRULED given the above order for granting leave to present a late Government Claims Act Claim.

Rather, where defendant is a public entity, plaintiff must allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §900, et seq.), or an excuse for noncompliance; where plaintiff fails to do so, the complaint is subject to general demurrer. (State v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243.) Equitable estoppel has been held a sufficient excuse for non-compliance with the claims filing requirement of the Government Claims Act. (See, e.g., Fredrichsen v.

(2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 245 (upholding demurrer to Labor Code section 1102.5 claim for failure to comply with Government Claims Act).) The Court finds the Government Claims Act applies to Plaintiffs seventh cause of action.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims are barred for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. Defendant also argues that it is immune from a claim for wrongful/constructive termination in violation of public policy and FEHA as a government entity. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiffs requests for punitive damages on the grounds that it is statutorily immune from punitive damages. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A.

Submitting a cost statement as part of ones performance under a contract is different from presenting a Government Claims Act claim afterward for breach of contract. Paragraph 17 does not allege compliance with the Government Claims Act, nor does it allege Plaintiff was excused from compliance. Although compliance need not be strict, it must at least be substantial, or, alternatively, excused. ( State v Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4 th 1234, 1245.)

Government Claims Act "The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. As relevant here, a plaintiff must timely file a claim for money or damages with the public entity." (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1219.)

Defendant demurs on the grounds that plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act and to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. Defendant also moves to strike the claim for punitive damages. 1. Demurrer Government Claims Act Defendant demurs to the entire FAC on the grounds that it is barred by the one-year limitation under the Government Claims Act.

As noted by Plaintiff, plaintiffs asserting claims under FEHA for violation of its terms need not comply with the Government Claims Act. (Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 701, 710-11.) This is because FEHA contains its own administrative remedies process that must be exhausted. This process meets the goals of the Government Claims Act. (Id. at 712; Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 861, 868-69.)

Government Claims Act 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. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1001), and “enable [public entities] to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation” (City of San Jose v.

However, Plaintiff has not plead FEHA or compliance with the Government Claims Act as to the 2nd and 4th causes of action. Accordingly, the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff’s 2nd and 4th claims are subject to the Government Claims Act, Plaintiff’s claims appear barred by the statute of limitations.

However, Plaintiff has not plead FEHA or compliance with the Government Claims Act as to the 2nd and 4th causes of action. Accordingly, the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff’s 2nd and 4th claims are subject to the Government Claims Act, Plaintiff’s claims appear barred by the statute of limitations.

However, Plaintiff has not plead FEHA or compliance with the Government Claims Act as to the 2nd and 4th causes of action. Accordingly, the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff’s 2nd and 4th claims are subject to the Government Claims Act, Plaintiff’s claims appear barred by the statute of limitations.

However, Plaintiff has not plead FEHA or compliance with the Government Claims Act as to the 2nd and 4th causes of action. Accordingly, the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff’s 2nd and 4th claims are subject to the Government Claims Act, Plaintiff’s claims appear barred by the statute of limitations.

As noted by Defendant, the Government Claims Act was enacted in 1963. Cavey v. Tualla (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 310, 326 [The Government Claims Act was enacted in 1963 to provide a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the liabilities and immunities of public entities and public employees for torts.] M ulloy preceded the enactment of the Government Claims Act. Further, a more recent case has recognized that it is impermissible to sue a public entity for common law negligence. Torres v.

Similarly, except for plaintiff's failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act, the fourteenth cause of action for negligent hiring alleged only against the State Bar of California is also adequately pled and not barred for any grounds set forth in defendants' moving papers. Plaintiff is given leave to amend to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act if he can do so in good faith.

They assert there is no allegations that support compliance with the Government Claims Act. The Motion to Strike argues that the Complaint does not conform to applicable laws. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the Complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action but fails to identify what cause of action is being asserted. He argues that there are exceptions to the Government Claims Act. A Reply was filed and has been considered.

Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509 [affirming sustained demurrer because minor plaintiff failed to comply with the timing requirements of the Government Claims Act].) A complaint subject to the Government 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 California, liability against a public entity is confined to the statutory scheme of the Government Claims Act. Sections 815(a) and 815.6 of the Government Claims Act require an authorizing statute or enactment before a governmental entity can be liable in tort ("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").

Plaintiff now seeks relief from the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act so that she can assert a cause of action against the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. A petition to be relieved from the claim filing requirements set forth in the Government Claims Act is brought under Government Code § 946.6.