circumstances surrounding claim in California

2023As noted ante, it is well-settled that the claim presentation requirement “ ‘ “must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” ’ ” (DiCampli- Mintz v. County of Santa Clara, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 991 ; City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 455 [explaining that “[s]uch knowledge--standing alone-- constitutes neither substantial compliance nor basis for estoppel”].) Moreover, we note that there is nothing in the record showing that the City was aware of the actual cause of plaintiff’s fall prior to the rej

2015Code, § 945.4; State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1239.) The purpose of the claims statutes is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 9 12 Cal.3d 447, 455 .) The claims statutes also “enable the public entity to engage in

2026Code, § 911.4, subds. (a) & (b).) “Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the claimant’s ability to maintain an action against the public entity.” (California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1581, 1591 .) The failure to so timely present a claim to the public entity bars a lawsuit against the public entity, “‘“even in the face of the public entity’s 4 actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.”’”(The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 116, 125, fn.

2016Failure to do so bars the lawsuit, “ ‘even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.’ ” (California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1581, 1591 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 160 ] (California Restaurant Management).) “Claims for personal injury must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action, and claims relating to any other cause of action must be filed within one year of the accrual of the cause of action.” (Ibid., citing Gov.

2020(Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 701, 711 .) 13 requirement is mandatory and “ ‘must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.’ ” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 738 ; Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374 (Gong).) The failure to timely present a claim to the public entity bars the claimant from filing a lawsuit against that entity. ( Gong, supra, at p. 374 .) Because presentation of a claim is a condition precedent to filing suit (Gov.

2020(Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 701, 711 .) 13 requirement is mandatory and “ ‘must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.’ ” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 738 ; Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374 (Gong).) The failure to timely present a claim to the public entity bars the claimant from filing a lawsuit against that entity. ( Gong, supra, at p. 374 .) Because presentation of a claim is a condition precedent to filing suit (Gov.

2025Code, § 945.4; see also City of Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at 738 [“‘It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim’”].) “‘[T]he filing of a claim for damages “is more than a procedural requirement, it is a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant, in short, an integral part of plaintiff’s cause of action.”’ [Citations.]” (Bodde, supra, at 1240.) Failure to present a timely claim “‘“bars the action.”’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiffs’ government to

2023(See Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467 , 554–555 [“ ‘Even when our review “is de novo, it is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and supported in [appellant’s opening] brief.” ’ ”].) 17 enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.’ [Citation.] The claims statutes also ‘enable the public entity to engage

2025Code, § 945.4; see also City of Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at 738 [“‘It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim’”].) “‘[T]he filing of a claim for damages “is more than a procedural requirement, it is a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant, in short, an integral part of plaintiff’s cause of action.”’ [Citations.]” (Bodde, supra, at 1240.) Failure to present a timely claim “‘“bars the action.”’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiffs’ government to

2015Code, § 945.4; State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1239.) The purpose of the claims statutes is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 9 12 Cal.3d 447, 455 .) The claims statutes also “enable the public entity to engage in

1980(Eastlick v. City of Los Angeles (1947) 29 Cal.2d 661, 667 [ 177 P.2d 558 , 170 A.L.R. 225 ]; Jackson v. Board of Education (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 856, 859 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 763 ].) It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.

1980(Eastlick v. City of Los Angeles (1947) 29 Cal.2d 661, 667 [ 177 P.2d 558 , 170 A.L.R. 225 ]; Jackson v. Board of Education (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 856, 859 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 763 ].) It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.

1980(Eastlick v. City of Los Angeles (1947) 29 Cal.2d 661, 667 [ 177 P.2d 558 , 170 A.L.R. 225 ]; Jackson v. Board of Education (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 856, 859 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 763 ].) It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.

1980(Eastlick v. City of Los Angeles (1947) 29 Cal.2d 661, 667 [ 177 P.2d 558 , 170 A.L.R. 225 ]; Jackson v. Board of Education (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 856, 859 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 763 ].) It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.

2026(See DiCampli-Mintz, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 991 [“The claimant bears the burden of ensuring that the claim is presented to the appropriate public entity”].) Plaintiffs must satisfy the claim presentation requirements even if the entity had actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.

2023(See DiCampli-Mintz, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 990 .) “ ‘ “It is well- settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 991.) “ ‘The filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 990.) Hernandez’s reliance on Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767 is similarly unhelpful.

2020(See Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal.3d 410, 417 [primary purpose of statute of limitations is to " '[prevent] surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and 20 witnesses have disappeared' "]; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1124 .) Rather, the purpose is " ' "to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied eve

2014If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be 8 Compliance with the Government Claims Act is a mandatory requirement before filing suit. “‘The failure to timely present a claim to the public entity bars the claimant from filing a lawsuit against that public entity. [Citation.] Moreover, because the purpose of the claim is not “to prevent surprise [but rather] is to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation . . . [citations][,] . .

2023(See DiCampli-Mintz, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 990 .) “ ‘ “It is well- settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 991.) “ ‘The filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 990.) Hernandez’s reliance on Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767 is similarly unhelpful.

2019Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) If the public entity denies the application, Government Code section 946.6 authorizes the injured party to petition *83 the court for relief from the claim requirements. ( Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767 , 1777, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 .) " 'Moreover, because the purpose of the claims is not "to prevent surprise [but rather] is to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation ... [citations][,] ... [i]t is well-settled that claims

2018Failure to present a timely claim bars suit against the entity.” (Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 734 , fn. omitted; §§ 905, 945.4.) The term “local public entity” includes a school district. (§ 900.4; Johnson v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 692, 699 .) A claim relating to a cause of action for personal injury must be presented to the local public entity “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) The date of accrual of the cause of action for claim presentation purposes is the same as the date of accrual that applies fo

2016Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) The date of accrual is the date “that would pertain under the statute of limitations applicable to a dispute between private litigants.” (Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208-209 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 , 164 P.3d 630 ].) The city contends that the October 15, 2011 claim letter filed by counsel for plaintiffs was untimely, apparently on the ground that their causes of action accrued when chapter 5.87 became effective in 2010, and because plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the city began enforcing chapter 5.87 on August 30, 2010.

2020(See Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal.3d 410, 417 [primary purpose of statute of limitations is to " '[prevent] surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and 20 witnesses have disappeared' "]; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1124 .) Rather, the purpose is " ' "to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied eve

2016(Ibid.) Here, Winston was required to file her personal injury claim with the County no later than six months after “the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) For purposes of the claims presentation deadline under the Claims Act, a cause of action accrues “ ‘on the same date a similar action against a nonpublic entity would be deemed to accrue for purposes of applying the relevant statute of limitations.’ ” (K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1242 , italics omitted; § 901.) Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at “the time when the cause

2018Failure to present a timely claim bars suit against the entity.” (Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 734 , fn. omitted; §§ 905, 945.4.) The term “local public entity” includes a school district. (§ 900.4; Johnson v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 692, 699 .) A claim relating to a cause of action for personal injury must be presented to the local public entity “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) The date of accrual of the cause of action for claim presentation purposes is the same as the date of accrual that applies fo

2013Such knowledge—standing alone—constitutes neither substantial compliance nor basis for estoppel.’ [Citations.]” (Johnson v. San Diego Unified School Dist., supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 697, fn. 1 , italics added.) Vanessa cites us to federal cases addressing the Federal Tort Claims Act ( 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.) in an effort to persuade us that she should not have been required to file a tort claim where the State was already deeply embroiled in litigation over Castaneda’s tort claim.

2018Failure to present a timely claim bars suit against the entity.” (Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 734 , fn. omitted; §§ 905, 945.4.) The term “local public entity” includes a school district. (§ 900.4; Johnson v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 692, 699 .) A claim relating to a cause of action for personal injury must be presented to the local public entity “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) The date of accrual of the cause of action for claim presentation purposes is the same as the date of accrual that applies fo

2016(Ibid.) Here, Winston was required to file her personal injury claim with the County no later than six months after “the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) For purposes of the claims presentation deadline under the Claims Act, a cause of action accrues “ ‘on the same date a similar action against a nonpublic entity would be deemed to accrue for purposes of applying the relevant statute of limitations.’ ” (K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1242 , italics omitted; § 901.) Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at “the time when the cause

2026Code, § 911.4, subds. (a) & (b).) “Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the claimant’s ability to maintain an action against the public entity.” (California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1581, 1591 .) The failure to so timely present a claim to the public entity bars a lawsuit against the public entity, “‘“even in the face of the public entity’s 4 actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.”’”(The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 116, 125, fn.

2023Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 446 (Stockett); DiCampli- Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 991 .) “ ‘ “ It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” [Citation.] The claims statutes also “enable the public entity to engage in fiscal planning for potential liabilities and to avoid similar liabilities in the future.” ’ ” (DiCampli-Mintz, at p. 991.) Although a government claim need not contain the detail and specificity required of a pleading in a civil action, it n

2023Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 446 (Stockett); DiCampli- Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 991 .) “ ‘ “ It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.” [Citation.] The claims statutes also “enable the public entity to engage in fiscal planning for potential liabilities and to avoid similar liabilities in the future.” ’ ” (DiCampli-Mintz, at p. 991.) Although a government claim need not contain the detail and specificity required of a pleading in a civil action, it n

2023(Stockett, at p. 447; Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 787, 794 .) In other words, the factual basis for recovery in the complaint must be “fairly reflected” in the government claim. 8 (Stockett, at p. 447; see Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376 [“In order to comply with the claim presentation requirement, the facts alleged in a complaint . . . must be consistent with the facts contained within the government claim”]; Castaneda v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1060 [“the factual circumstances set f

2022The juvenile court was entitled to consider these cumulative facts and “‘all the circumstances affecting the child, wherever they occur.’” (In re T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 133.) As to Mother’s contention that the court’s termination of the restraining order vitiated jurisdiction, the court agreed to terminate the order (based on a request by both parents) after it had made its findings and orders invoking jurisdiction.

2020(See Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal.3d 410, 417 [primary purpose of statute of limitations is to " '[prevent] surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and 20 witnesses have disappeared' "]; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1124 .) Rather, the purpose is " ' "to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied eve

2020Only when the instruction has coerced the jurors into surrendering their conscientious convictions in order to reach agreement should the verdict be overturned.” (Inouye v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 648, 651 (Inouye).) The court in Inouye considered the circumstances surrounding the instruction and concluded they were not coercive.