A Court Reiterates the Necessity of Compliance with the Government Claims Act

Summary: A minor plaintiff alleged that an elementary school teacher grabbed and twisted his arm causing personal injuries. His mother filed a complaint with the Palmdale School District on her son’s behalf seeking a full and unbiased investigation into the incident. Subsequently, the minor, represented by counsel, filed a complaint for damages against the District and others. The trial court sustained the District’s demurrer, concluding the plaintiff failed to present a timely Government Tort Claim in compliance with Government Code section 910.2. In A.S., a Minor, v. Palmdale School District, (2023) 94 Cal. App. 5th 1091, the Second Appellate District affirmed.

Discussion:  On March 5, 2019, a Palmdale School District elementary school teacher grabbed the minor plaintiff’s arm and twisted it, resulting in an injury that required medical treatment. The next day, the child’s mother sought to file a complaint. She was given a “complaint form,” which she filled out. She asked District staff if there were any other forms to complete, and she was told there were none, and that a full inquiry would be made into the incident.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the Claims Act requires a person seeking monetary damages from a public entity to file a claim with that entity (Section 905). The claim must include the information specified in Section 910 such as the amount sought, if it is less than $10,000, and whether the case would be a limited jurisdiction case. The Court noted that a claim under Section 910 is sufficient if there is: 1) some compliance with all of the statutory requirements; and 2) the claim adequately discloses sufficient information to enable the public entity to investigate the merits of the claim so as to settle it, if appropriate.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the complaint form filled out by his mother complied with the Claims Act. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that substantial compliance cannot cure the total omission of an essential element from the claim. The court found that the complaint form did not provide an indication to the District that the plaintiff intended to sue. Further, the failure to estimate the amount of damages on the purported claim document could not be remedied.

The plaintiff also contended that his mother relied on statements made by the District that that the complaint form was all that she needed to fill out, and that the District should be estopped from asserting the complaint form was insufficient. The Court of Appeal again disagreed, holding that while a public entity may be bound by equitable estoppel, the circumstances changed when the plaintiff acquired counsel. Here, the court found the plaintiff and his attorney had sufficient time to determine that a compliant claim was required to be presented within the mandatory one year period.

A copy of the case can be found here.

This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Mark F. Hazelwood.