Government Liability Update

Government Wedding Crashers Immune

In Richardson-Tunnell v. SIPE, the Second Appellate District, Division Six, addressed whether a workers compensation JPA and a school district employer  could be held liable under the Californiapaparazzi statute for workers comp investigators who  posed as wedding guests so that they could surreptitiously video a claimant at her wedding -- and who later videotaped the claimant on her honeymoon -- could be held liable under California's paparazzi statute.  The court held that they could not.  Government Code section 821.6 -- which immunizes administrative and legal prosecutions -- immunized the investigative conduct.

The court also held that section 821.6's immunity is jurisdictional.  The defendants therefore did not waive the defense by failing to plead it in their answer.  Instead, it could be asserted for the first time on a motion for judgment on the pleadings; or even on appeal.

Contract Breaches Need Claims Too

A new California Supreme Court Case, City of Stockton v. Superior Court (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC) , filed December 3, 2007 settles several important issues concerning the Government Code's claim requirements for suing public entities:

• Resolving a longtime split in authority, the Court ruled that the claim-presentation requirements apply to breach of contract claims that seek damages.  They are not limited to tort claims.
• Because the Government Code sections controlling claims and liability of public entities apply to more than just claims, the Court proclaimed it would no longer describe Government Code section 810 et seq as the "Tort Claims Act."  Instead, it will refer to the statutes as the "Government Claims Act."
• Government Code section 814, which states that nothing in "this party" applies to breach of contract, only deals with the immunity portions of the Government Claims Act.  The claim requirements have nothing to do with Governmental immunity.
• A plaintiff cannot argue that the entity is estopped from enforcing the claim-presentation requirements unless the plaintiff can identify a specific act or statement by the entity that prevented or deterred it from filing a timely claim.
• An entity does not waive the claim-presentation requirements by waiting until the claim-presentation period has expired before asserting the requirements.  The defendant here did not waive the requirements by filing multiple demurrers that did not assert the plaintiff''s failure to present a claim.
• Correspondence does not constitute a "claim as presented" -- requiring the entity to respond with a Notice of Insufficiency or else waive the claim requirement -- unless it "specifically alert[s] defendants to weigh the alternatives of litigation or compromise."