Government Claims Act in California

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.

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.

Claims Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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.)

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.)

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

Plaintiff failed to plead compliance with Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 810 et seq.). 1. Overview of Government Claims Act The Government Claims Act provides (except as otherwise provided by statute) that a “public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an a

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.

Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing compliance with the Government Claims Act is sustained.

Plaintiff's action is barred for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act.

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.

Discussion Entire Complaint: Failure to Comply with Government Claims Act Defendants contend that the entire claim is barred because Plaintiff failed to submit a Government Claims Act claim to Defendants.

Care demurs to the complaint on the grounds (1) Plaintiff fails to plead compliance with and has not complied with the Government Claims Act; (2) the Government Claims Act provides a complete defense to Plaintiffs common law tort claim; and (3) Plaintiff fails to adequately allege several elements of a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, particularly in light of Judge Strobels binding ruling.

Failure to Comply with Government Claims Act The County argues that the complaint fails to allege facts showing that Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act by submitting a claim for damages to the County prior to filing this lawsuit. The opposition claims that the County should be estopped from raising issues of non-compliance with the Government Claims Act because County representatives advised Plaintiff that the accident did not occur on County property. The County is a public entity.

As there exists great liberality in giving Plaintiffs an opportunity to file leave to amend, the Court shall sustain the demurrer but with 30 days leave amend to ascertain whether Plaintiff can cure the defects in the FAC, including compliance with the Government Claims Act and any applicable tolling.

As there exists great liberality in giving Plaintiffs an opportunity to file leave to amend, the Court shall sustain the demurrer but with 30 days leave amend to ascertain whether Plaintiff can cure the defects in the FAC, including compliance with the Government Claims Act and any applicable tolling.

As there exists great liberality in giving Plaintiffs an opportunity to file leave to amend, the Court shall sustain the demurrer but with 30 days leave amend to ascertain whether Plaintiff can cure the defects in the FAC, including compliance with the Government Claims Act and any applicable tolling.

Plaintiff alleged violations of Government Code Section 8314, which is not part of the Government Claims Act. The purported injury involved in this case is not the type contemplated by the Government Claims Act. (See City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859, 867.) CCP section 1038 is inapplicable. Defendant also seeks attorney's fees under CCP section 1021.5.

Conclusion The Court finds Plaintiffs Complaint states insufficient facts by virtue of her failure to comply with the Government Claims Act.

LAUSD 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.)

Compliance With the Government Claims Act The threshold issue to deciding Defendants demurrer and motion to strike is whether Plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act. Primarily, this Court examines whether Plaintiff filed this action within the 6-month period to do so after the City rejected her prelawsuit claim.

Defendant now seeks a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint insufficiently stated a claim and did not comply with the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer. II. Analysis. A complaint must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.10(a)(l).) A demurrer “tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint.” (Williams v.

The Plaintiff Failed to Comply with the Government Claims Act Under the Government Claims Act, a claimant seeking money damages against a public entity, and its public employees acting within the scope of their employment, is required to file an initial claim with the relevant public entity. (See Gov. Code, §§ 905, 950.2.) Failure to do so bars the plaintiff from suing the public entity and public employees. (Gov. Code, § 950.4.)

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.)

On February 28, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to bifurcate, requesting the Court to decide whether Plaintiff satisfied the Government Claims Act before the substance of the retaliation claim goes to a jury trial.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that other statutes have exempted plaintiffs’ claims from the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff cites Cornejo v.

Such judicial relief will usually take the form of a petition for writ of mandamus or an action for injunctive or declaratory relief and, if the officer is not seeking money or damages, the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act does not apply. Id.

Here, the Cross-complaint fails to allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement under the Government Claims Act. Therefore, the demurrer to causes of action 10-15 are SUSTAINED. The court grants 20 days leave to amend because this is the original cross-complaint. Accordingly, the City of Downey’s motion to strike is MOOT. It is unnecessary to reach City of Downey’s remaining arguments and thus the court declines to rule on them.

sometimes referred to as the Government Claims Act. (Gov’t Code § 810, subd. (b).) The Government Claims Act requires, for all claims of money or damages against local public entities, a presentation of a claim. (Gov’t Code § 905.)

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.

Notably, Plaintiff is allowed to plead compliance with the claims presentation requirement in the Government Claims Act using a general allegation. (Esparza v.

No claim was alleged to have been made to comply with the Government Claims Act. Order will be entered.

Petition for Relief for Government Claims Act. TENTATIVE RULING # 5: THE PETITION HAVING BEEN VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ON JANUARY 23, 2020, THIS MATTER IS DROPPED FROM THE CALENDAR.

The unopposed Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act.

The Government Claims Act contains its own statutes of limitations for the filing of a complaint. When written notice of the rejection of a claim is either personally delivered or deposited in the mail, a claimant must ordinarily file suit against the public entity within six months of the date of such delivery or placement. (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1).)

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.)

Tort Claims Against Public Employees The Government Claims Act immunizes public entities from tort liability unless liability is authorized by statute. ( See Gov. Code § 815, subds. (a)-(b); K.M. Grossmont Union High School District (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 717, 756.)

As to the Labor Code § 1102.5 cause of action, although Plaintiff argues that Labor Code § 1102.5 contains a "functionally equivalent claim process" such that the Government Claims Act does not apply, Plaintiff fails to articulate how the subsections Plaintiff relies on constitute any type of a claim process equivalent to that of the Government Claims Act or the DFHA claim process. Absent allegations of compliance with the Government Claims Act, these two causes of action fail. Shirk v.

Therefore, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that compliance with the Government Claims Act was not required for the claim for equal pay violations. The purpose of the Government Claims Act has been satisfied through the DFEH process. ( Krainock v. Superior Court (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1473, 1477; Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 701, 712.)

On May 13, 2021, the Court sustained the County's demurrer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. On August 3, 2021, the Court sustained the County's demurrer to the Cross-Complaint on the grounds that the City failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

On May 13, 2021, the Court sustained the County's demurrer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. On August 3, 2021, the Court sustained the County's demurrer to the Cross-Complaint on the grounds that the City failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

On May 13, 2021, the Court sustained the County's demurrer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. On August 3, 2021, the Court sustained the County's demurrer to the Cross-Complaint on the grounds that the City failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").