By Brent N. Mackay, Partner, and Thomas M. Padian, Associate (Irvine, CA)
Introduction
Imagine you represent a claimant with grounds to sue a governmental entity. Prior to the initiation of the lawsuit, you submit a claim on their behalf, which is rejected. You file suit in state court only to have the judge dismiss your client’s case on the basis that your client did not comply with the statutory claim presentation requirements and is time barred. The claimant has now lost any ability to advance the claim, all before any merit-based discussion is had.
This is what took place for the pro se plaintiff in the recently decided Campbell v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 151.
This article examines these statutory claims presentation requirements, exceptions, and certain practicalities to consider when suing California governmental entities.
Government Claims Act and Statutory Claim Presentation Requirements
A claimant seeking to file suit for “money or damages” against a governmental entity in California generally must first comply with the Government Claims Act (Government Code sections 810-996.6) (the “Act”). The Act’s claim-filing requirements serve several purposes: providing the public entity with sufficient information to allow it to investigate the matter; facilitating settlement of meritorious claims; enabling the public entity to engage in fiscal planning; and avoiding similar liability in the future. (Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 183, 200.)
Govt. Code sections 810 – 996.6 detail the steps a claimant must take before litigating a claim against a public entity. Construction contract claims fall within the plain meaning of the Act’s claim presentation requirements. (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 738.)
Section 910 details the information that must be presented to the public entity to adequately assert a claim. These include the claimant’s name and address (including service address); details about the claim such as the date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction; a general description of loss or damage known at the time of the claim’s submission; the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the loss, if known; and the amount claimed. There are varying procedures based on whether the claimed amount is over or under $10,000.
Section 910.2 mandates that the claim be signed by the claimant. Section 911.2 requires the claimant to submit a claim for personal injury, personal property damage, or wrongful death within six months of the incident, whereas claims for breach of contract or real property damage must be submitted within one (1) year from the incident.
Afterpresentation of the claim, the public entity has forty-five (45) days to allow the claim or reject the claim, or, if the public entity fails to act on the claim within the 45-day period, the claim is deemed rejected. (Govt. Code section 912.4(c).) Only after the claim is rejected may a claimant pursue legal action against the public entity.
Government Code Claim Presentation Exception
One exception to the Act’s claim presentation requirements is by contractual agreement wherein the public entity provides a different claim submission. These agreed-upon procedures, not the Government Code requirements, control the claim submission process, unless the contract also requires the presentation of a statutory claim. (Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 287, 291.)
Such was the case in Kiewit Power Constructors Co. v. City of Los Angeles, a matter successfully tried by lawyers at Watt, Tieder, Hoffar and Fitzgerald, in which the firm’s client, Kiewit Power Constructors Co. (“Kiewit”), was awarded a $45 million jury verdict against the City of Los Angeles.
There, the contract between Kiewit and the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (the “City”) included multiple claim submission provisions, in addition to the Government Code requirements. In affirming judgment in favor of Kiewit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the relevant contract provision and found that the jury reasonably concluded that the claim submission requirements were satisfied, affording more flexibility than the Campbell court did with the Act’s far stricter requirements.
Campbell And Its Lessons
The Campbell holding highlights the fatal effects resulting from a failure to comply with the Act.
Campbell filed suit (in pro per) against her former employer, the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), alleging that LAUSD retaliated and discriminated against her. LAUSD successfully argued that Campbell failed to adhere to the Act’s requirements and her claim was untimely.
On appeal, Campbell argued that she had substantially complied with the statutory claim presentation requirements by previously advising LAUSD of racial discrimination and whistleblower complaints to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the “Department”). The appellate court ruled that Campbell did not substantially comply with the claim presentation requirements in section 910 because she “has not shown that any of her complaints went to the right people or contained the information required by [Govt. Code § 910].” Nor did Campbell’s pleading, filed in the untimely lawsuit, adhere to the claim presentation requirement of section 910.
The Government Code presentation requirements are particular and must be complied with precisely, often requiring legal assistance in order to adequately and timely submit a claim. Campbell opted to pursue her claim and file her lawsuit against the LAUSD without legal counsel, a choice that likely contributed to her entirely procedural-based outcome.
Many governmental entities have their own Government Code claim form that can be filed directly with their governing board or clerk. If no such form exists or is otherwise unavailable, a claimant should prepare and timely submit their own statutorily compliant claim.
Conclusion
California claim presentation requirements, as a condition precedent to pursuing litigation against a public entity, have been in place for years. Campbell demonstrates the importance of complying with the Government Code claim presentation requirements and emphasizes the fatal consequences to one’s claim for failure to do so. With the right guidance, these requirements are easily navigable and can lead to a favorable result.