claim filing requirement in California

2020(Bennett v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 116, 121 [the emotional state of grieving parents whose son died after being buried under a cement wall maintained 18 by the city did not warrant relief for excusable neglect in failing to file a claim]; Dept. of Transportation, at p. 46 [“depression” experienced by a husband who survived a car accident in which his wife died did not warrant relief from the claim filing requirement].) We are sympathetic to the emotional trauma and psychological issues that a woman experiences when she is sexually assaulted by a man in a position of authority

2020(Bennett v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 116, 121 [the emotional state of grieving parents whose son who died after being buried under a cement wall maintained by the city did not warrant relief for excusable neglect in failing to file a claim]; Dept. of Transportation, at p. 46 [“depression” experienced by 18 a husband who survived a car accident in which his wife died did not warrant relief from the claim filing requirement].) We are sympathetic to the emotional trauma and psychological issues that a woman experiences when she is sexually assaulted by a man in a position of autho

2000The Court of Appeal concluded that a claim for wages owed is not a damage claim in holding that claims for wages earned but not paid are not damage claims subject to the claim filing requirement of Government Code section 905 in Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1080 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 576 ] (“Earned but unpaid salary or wages are vested property rights, claims for which may not be properly characterized as actions for monetary damages.”).

2000The Court of Appeal concluded that a claim for wages owed is not a damage claim in holding that claims for wages earned but not paid are not damage claims subject to the claim filing requirement of Government Code section 905 in Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1080 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 576 ] (“Earned but unpaid salary or wages are vested property rights, claims for which may not be properly characterized as actions for monetary damages.”).

1997(Eureka Teacher’s Assn. v. Board of Education (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 469, 475-476 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] [teacher’s claim for backpay was incidental to mandamus action for reemployment and thus exempt from claim-filing requirement]; County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 587 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 1 ] [mandamus action to compel state officer to disburse funds to county under Medi-Cal statutes was exempt from claim-filing requirement]; *1126 Forde v. Cory (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 434 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 903 ] [mandamus proceeding to compel state officer to pay lump sum death benefit on behalf

1997(Eureka Teacher’s Assn. v. Board of Education (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 469, 475-476 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 790 ] [teacher’s claim for backpay was incidental to mandamus action for reemployment and thus exempt from claim-filing requirement]; County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 587 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 1 ] [mandamus action to compel state officer to disburse funds to county under Medi-Cal statutes was exempt from claim-filing requirement]; *1126 Forde v. Cory (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 434 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 903 ] [mandamus proceeding to compel state officer to pay lump sum death benefit on behalf

2020Sections 220 and 262.3 contain “no comparable provisions” to DFEH’s extensive damage remedies and damage claim process “and there is, therefore, no reason to exempt actions under those statutes from the claim filing requirement where the primary relief sought . . . is money damages.” (Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 764 .) B.Q. contends the Legislature intended the Education Code antidiscrimination provisions be interpreted consistent with FEHA.

2004Code, § 945.4.) Contrary to the retirees’ assertion, their claims are not exempt from the claim filing requirement by virtue of the exception set forth in section 905, subdivision (f) of the Government Code. *956 (See Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 763-764 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 ]; Dalton v. East Bay Mun.

1984Further support for this position is that, subsequent to the decision in City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d 447, the Legislature enacted section 905.1, which eliminated the claim filing requirement as a precondition to the maintenance of an inverse condemnation action against a public entity.

1980(City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 449 .) The claim-filing requirement and the predicates for relief from those requirements were succinctly stated by this court in El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 57 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 267 ].

2024We also note that in denying his government claim on June 28, 2018, the City specifically warned Cerda that some of his claims were late and that his “recourse at this time in regard to the untimely claim(s) is to apply without delay to the Los Angeles City Clerk for leave to present a late claim.” (See Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1234 [“if a claim presented does not substantially comply with the claim filing requirement, the public entity must advise the claimant of the deficiencies or lose the right to assert the noncompliance as an affirmative defense”]

2023The District Has Not Waived Noncompliance as an Affirmative Defense Our determination that the complaint form did not substantially comply with the requirements of section 910 does not end our inquiry, however. “[I]f a claim presented does not substantially comply with the claim filing requirement, the public entity must advise the claimant of the deficiencies or lose the right to assert the noncompliance as an affirmative defense.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1234 .) As appellant’s reply brief indicates, albeit indirectly, 4 We note that, in its ruling o

2017(See Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1139 , 1155, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 [ "The origin and purposes of the government claim filing requirements and the administrative remedies exhaustion doctrine differ, and elimination of the exhaustion requirement does not release a litigant from the need to comply with Government Claims Act requirements." ].) Finally, application of the futility doctrine would contravene the purposes of the claim filing requirement.

2017(See Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1139 , 1155, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 [ "The origin and purposes of the government claim filing requirements and the administrative remedies exhaustion doctrine differ, and elimination of the exhaustion requirement does not release a litigant from the need to comply with Government Claims Act requirements." ].) Finally, application of the futility doctrine would contravene the purposes of the claim filing requirement.

2017(See Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com. , supra , 34 Cal.3d at p. 418 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 357 , 668 P.2d 664 [futility exception requires that the *171 party invoking the exception " ' "positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be in a particular case" ' "].) The SAC did not allege that MBUSD positively declared what its ruling would be on any defamation and deceit claims presented to it.

2017(See Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com. , supra , 34 Cal.3d at p. 418 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 357 , 668 P.2d 664 [futility exception requires that the *171 party invoking the exception " ' "positively state that the [agency] has declared what its ruling will be in a particular case" ' "].) The SAC did not allege that MBUSD positively declared what its ruling would be on any defamation and deceit claims presented to it.

2013(Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 841 .) 8 a criminal offense is tolled while the charges against the accused are pending in superior court if the civil claim is based on the officer’s conduct relating to the offense for which the accused is charged.

2000(Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 842 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 453 , 548 P.2d 1125 ].) 10 Asgari itself suggests the court would have reached a different result if the plaintiff had been proceeding under section 1983 instead of limiting his claim to state law causes of action.

2007The claim-filing requirement of the Government Claims Act serves several purposes; (1) to provide the public entity with sufficient information to allow it to make a thorough investigation of the matter; (2) to facilitate settlement of meritorious claims; (3) to enable the public entity to engage in fiscal planning; and (4) to avoid similar liability in the future. {TrafficSchoolOnline, Inc. v. Clarke (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 736, 742 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 ].) Notice to a subordinate employee of the public entity may not serve these purposes.

2007The claim-filing requirement of the Government Claims Act serves several purposes; (1) to provide the public entity with sufficient information to allow it to make a thorough investigation of the matter; (2) to facilitate settlement of meritorious claims; (3) to enable the public entity to engage in fiscal planning; and (4) to avoid similar liability in the future. {TrafficSchoolOnline, Inc. v. Clarke (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 736, 742 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 ].) Notice to a subordinate employee of the public entity may not serve these purposes.

2006(Baines Pickwick Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 305-307; Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist.[, supra,] 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1079 .) ‘A suit for “money or damages” includes all actions where the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, regardless whether the action is founded in “ ‘tort, contract or some other theory.’ ” ’ (Hart v. County of Alameda[, supra,] 76 Cal.App.4th 766, 778 , quoting Baines Pickwick Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 307 .)” (Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 367, 382-383 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 ].)

2004(Baines Pickwick Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 305-307; Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1079 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 576 ].) “A suit for ‘money or damages’ includes all actions where the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, regardless whether the action is founded in ‘ “tort, contract or some other theory.” ’ ” (Hart v. County of Alameda (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 766, 778 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 ], quoting Baines Pickwick Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 307.) Because plaintiffs failed to allege compliance with t

2001(See Kagy v. Napa State Hospital, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at pp. 4-5, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ; Favorite v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 835, 839 , 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 656 ; Christopher P. v. Mojave Unified School District (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 165, 169-170 , 23 Cal. Rptr.2d 353 .) When an application to file a late claim is itself not timely filed, however, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under section 946.6. ( Kagy v. Napa State Hospital, supra, 28 Cal. App.4th at pp. 3-4, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ; Greyhound Lines v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 488 , 231

2001(See Kagy v. Napa State Hospital, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at pp. 4-5, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ; Favorite v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 835, 839 , 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 656 ; Christopher P. v. Mojave Unified School District (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 165, 169-170 , 23 Cal. Rptr.2d 353 .) When an application to file a late claim is itself not timely filed, however, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under section 946.6. ( Kagy v. Napa State Hospital, supra, 28 Cal. App.4th at pp. 3-4, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 ; Greyhound Lines v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 488 , 231

1985(Rivera v. City of Carson (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 718, 723-724 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 4 ]; El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 57, 62 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 267 ].) “Excusable neglect is neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.” (Ebersol v. Cowan, supra, 35 Cal.3d 427, 435 .) Appellant’s sole support for her assertion of excusable neglect is found in her declaration, wherein she states: “I had no knowledge of government tort claim requirements, nor was I advised, made aware of, or. informed of such re

1985(Rivera v. City of Carson (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 718, 723-724 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 4 ]; El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 57, 62 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 267 ].) “Excusable neglect is neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.” (Ebersol v. Cowan, supra, 35 Cal.3d 427, 435 .) Appellant’s sole support for her assertion of excusable neglect is found in her declaration, wherein she states: “I had no knowledge of government tort claim requirements, nor was I advised, made aware of, or. informed of such re

1984Although the claim may have been defective here, Wilson v. San Francisco Redevel *801 opment Agency (1977) 19 Cal.3d 555 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 720 , 564 P.2d 872 ] teaches us that a public agency’s failure to comply with Government Code section 53051 entitles claimants to ignore the claim filing requirement entirely.

1984Although the claim may have been defective here, Wilson v. San Francisco Redevel *801 opment Agency (1977) 19 Cal.3d 555 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 720 , 564 P.2d 872 ] teaches us that a public agency’s failure to comply with Government Code section 53051 entitles claimants to ignore the claim filing requirement entirely.

2022(See e.g., Ngo v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 951-952 [because section 946.6 authorizes a court to relieve a plaintiff from the claim presentation requirement, but does not authorize a court to determine that the plaintiff complied with the claim presentation requirement by presenting a timely claim, the timeliness issue is not before the court in a relief proceeding]; Rason v. Santa Barbara City Housing Authority (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 817, 822, 827 [“[a] trial court hearing a section 946.6 petition cannot consider whether a claim was timely, because that issue is not with

2022(See e.g., Ngo v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 951-952 [because section 946.6 authorizes a court to relieve a plaintiff from the claim presentation requirement, but does not authorize a court to determine that the plaintiff complied with the claim presentation requirement by presenting a timely claim, the timeliness issue is not before the court in a relief proceeding]; Rason v. Santa Barbara City Housing Authority (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 817, 822, 827 [“[a] trial court hearing a section 946.6 petition cannot consider whether a claim was timely, because that issue is not with

2022(See e.g., Ngo v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 951-952 [because section 946.6 authorizes a court to relieve a plaintiff from the claim presentation requirement, but does not authorize a court to determine that the plaintiff complied with the claim presentation requirement by presenting a timely claim, the timeliness issue is not before the court in a relief proceeding]; Rason v. Santa Barbara City Housing Authority (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 817, 822, 827 [“[a] trial court hearing a section 946.6 petition cannot consider whether a claim was timely, because that issue is not with