In Judicial Council of California v. Superior Court (Bean), published September 16, 2014, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 5, granted a writ petition directing that the Judicial Council's summary judgment motion be granted, and resolving an ambiguity in the Government Claims Act regarding receipt of claims against judicial entities. The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries in an elevator in a Los Angeles Superior Court courthouse elevator. Her attorneys presented a claim for damages to the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board of the State of California. The defendant Judicial Council of California, which operates California state courts, moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had never presented a claim to the Secretariat of the Judicial Council. The plaintiff argued that under subdivision (e) of Government Code section 915, actual receipt of a claim at an office of the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board established compliance with the claim-presentation requirement.
The appellate court acknowledged that subdivision (e) is ambiguous. It states that a claim shall be deemed to have been presented in compliance with section 915 if "any of the following apply." It separately lists the option of "It is actually received at an office of the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board" (subd. (e)(2) and, "If against a judicial branch entity or judge, it is actually received by the court executive officer, court clerk/administrator, court clerk, or secretariat of the judicial branch entity." (Subd. (e)(4).) The subdivision could be reasonably interpreted to mean either that actual receipt by the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board of a claim against a court suffices; or that the claim must be presented to a body listed in subdivision (e)(4). After reviewing legislative intent materials, the court concluded that the claim must actually be received by one of the recipients listed in subdivision (e)(4). Because none of those prescribed recipients received the claim within the claim period, the Judicial Council was entitled to summary judgment.
Comments