In Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor District, published October 22, 2020, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6 affirmed judgment entered for the defendant district based on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff filed a complaint in superior court against the district. On the same day, he faxed the district an application for permission to present a late claim, with a proposed claim attached. The district's harbor manager received the application the next day, and presented it to the board of commissioners 16 days later. The district sent the plaintiff a notice rejecting the claim, but not mentioning the application. The plaintiff later served the summons and complaint upon the district. The district filed an answer asserting failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. The trial court granted the district's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on noncompliance with the Act.
The court of appeal ruled that the plaintiff timely presented the late-claim application to the board within a year of accrual. The fact that the harbor master did not present it to the board until 16 days later did not affect the timeliness of the presentation, because the plaintiff faxed the application to the proper recipient, the district. Because the district sent a Government Code section 913 notice denying the claim on its merits, and did not send a Government Code section 911.8 notice denying the application (and warning that the plaintiff had six months to petition the court for late-claim relief), the district was estopped from asserting that it did not grant the application to file a late claim. The application was therefore deemed granted. But the plaintiff did not wait for the district to take action on the claim or application, or for the time for it to do so to expire, before filing suit. Therefore, his complaint was premature. The appellate court disagreed with various cases that allowed plaintiffs to file premature complaints before claims were rejected. In light of the California Supreme Court's decision that claim presentation requirements were to be strictly applied, the appellate court deemed those cases no longer good law. The plaintiff therefore failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. The trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.
Comments