The path to bringing claims against local governmental entities, such as cities and counties, is one filled with obstacles that can deliver a fatal blow to the uninformed claimant’s claim. The creation of California’s Government Tort Claims Act in 1963 established a series of specific rules, procedures, and strict deadlines that must be observed in order to effectively bring a claim against a local governmental entity. However, that is only where the fun begins. In a recent case entitled City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court, the Court approved and highlighted a city’s ability to enact its own tort claim procedures to fill gaps within the state-wide Government Tort Claim’s Act.
Facts of City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court
County of Santa Cruz sued the City of Santa Cruz alleging that it incurred more than $1.2 million in costs for emergency repairs to a portion of roadways located within the jurisdiction of the City. Before bringing suit, the County failed to present a claim to the City, as is required in certain circumstances by tort claims statutes. The City challenged the County’s lawsuit via a demurrer on the basis that a claim had not been presented to the City before the County filed suit. While the parties agreed that the state-wide Government Tort Claims Act did not require the County to have submitted a claim to the City before suing, the primary issue in the case was whether the City’s municipal code required the County to have submitted a claim before suing.
Trial Court: City’s Demurrer Overruled; City Ordinance Does Not Apply to County’s Claims
Starting first with the state-wide statute, California’s Government Claims Act generally requires a party to present a claim for money or damages directly to a public entity before filing a lawsuit. Failing to do so, including failing to observe related strict deadlines, is fatal and an absolute bar to later filing a lawsuit. However, California’s statute has limits. For example, Section 905 of the Government Claim’s Act “except[s]” certain types of claims from the claim presentation requirement, including claims brought by a local public entity such as the County.
The statute goes on in Section 935 to authorize a local public entity, such as the City, to adopt a claim presentation ordinance for claims “which are excepted by Section 905” from the claim presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act. Like other California cities, the City of Santa Cruz had accepted this invitation and adopted a claim presentation ordinance which, according to the language of the ordinance, applies to “[c]laims against the City of Santa Cruz for money or damages which are not governed by California Government Code section 905.”
The trial court focused its analysis on the “not governed by” language in the City’s ordinance. Ultimately, the trial court determined that while the ordinance applies to claims that “not governed by” section 905 of California’s Tort Claim statute, here, the County’s claim is governed by Section 905 which provides an exception to the claims presentation requirement for the County’s claim against the City. Accordingly, the demurrer was overruled on that basis.
Court of Appeal: Overturned; County Required to Comply with City’s Claim Presentation Requirement
On appeal, the appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision and concluded that the City’s ordinance encompasses the claims that California’s Tort Claim statute has excepted from the state-wide claims presentation requirement. The appellate court explained that the most plausible and reasonable interpretation of the City’s ordinance is that the City included the “governed by” phrase in an attempt to cover all claims that would be exempted by Section 905 of the state statute. The court further explained that the City’s ordinance had expressed a clear intent to broadly require all claims for money or damages to be presented to the City before a lawsuit may be filed. Nothing in this broad expression of intent suggests that the City intended to allow claims that are excepted from section 905’s claim presentation requirement to also be excepted from the City ordinance’s claim presentation requirement.
Lessons
The courts have recognized that the purpose of the Government Claims Act is to provide public entities sufficient information to enable them to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. Failing to give the public entity that opportunity by jumping through the right hoops and over the proper hurdles carries a harsh sentence of barring a claimant’s claim and potential lawsuit. Moreover, since several cities across California have enacted their own ordinances establishing tort claim procedures, there is another layer of hoops and hurdles for claimants to navigate when bringing claims against specific cities. Therefore, it is imperative that claimants understand these rules exist and carefully review and follow them whenever they have a potential claim against a public entity.
[View source.]
