In Santos v. Los Angeles Unified School District, published November 29, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4 reversed summary judgment granted to the defendant school district based on the plaintiffs' failure to present a claim to the district. The plaintiffs were involved in a serious auto accident with a Los Angeles School Police Department (LASPD) vehicle. Before the plaintiffs were taken to the hospital, they received a business card with the LASPD seal, address, phone number, and website. Four days later, through counsel, the plaintiffs presented a claim for damages to the City of Los Angeles. The city denied the claim, and stated that LASPD was a separate public entity. The attorney checked the LASPD website. The website stated the question of whether LASPD was an independent law enforcement organization, and stated in response that the district maintains its own fully-accredited police department, but that LASPD is a separate entity. The attorney called LASPD, and told a lieutenant that he needed to submit a claim form for damages to the LASPD. The lieutenant told him that a claim form was available on the LASPD website and that he should mail the form to LASPD. He did not mention the district. The attorney downloaded a "service complaint form" from the website, which did not mention the district. In small print, it said, "For LASPD Internal Affairs Use Only." The attorney filled out the form, attached the claim previously submitted to the city, and mailed it to LASPD. LASPD did not respond to it until over a year later, after the plaintiffs filed suit. At that time, LASPD wrote a letter stating that LASPD was not a separate legal entity, but was part of the district. In addition, after filing the suit, the attorney (after many tries) received the traffic report, which listed the employer of the driver as LASPD, but the owner of the vehicle as the district. The plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the district. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that LASPD was not an independent government entity, but part of the district, and that equitable estoppel did not apply because no reasonable attorney would have relied on the business card or the lieutenant's information in determining LASPD was the entity to which to present the claim.
The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs could raise equitable estoppel, despite not having pleaded it. The district forfeited the argument that they could not, and in any case, because the complaint could have been amended to allege estoppel without prejudice to the district, the trial and appellate courts could consider the estoppel argument on its merits. The appellate court further ruled that the evidence described above raised a triable issue of fact on whether the district concealed the fact that it was the responsible entity. The business card, the lieutenant's statements, and the website's assertion that LASPD was a separate entity raised a triable issue of fact on whether the district concealed that LASPD was not a separate entity. Evidence supporting the reasonableness of the belief was the absence of mention of LASD on the business card, despite Government Code section 7530's requirements, and the city's denial on the ground that LASPD was a separate entity.
Comments