In Malear v. State of California, published March 13, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 3 reversed the dismissal of a putative class action after demurrer. The plaintiff alleged that the transfer of 194 inmates from one prison to another in May 2020 without testing or isolating inmates who displayed symptoms of COVID-19 led to an outbreak of COVID in the prison to which the inmates were transferred. The plaintiff presented a claim for damages to the state, then filed his original complaint in superior court twelve days later, before the claim was denied. Two days later, the state sent notice of rejection of the claim. Three months later, before the lawsuit was served, the plaintiff filed, as of right, an amended complaint that included new allegations that the plaintiff had now complied with the claim presentation requirements. He then served the original and the amended complaint. The amended complaint was filed and served within six months after the rejection of the claim. The trial court sustained the state's demurrer on the ground that, by filing suit before the claim was rejected, the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory claim requirements.
The appellate court disagreed. Government Code section 945.4 requires that a plaintiff present a claim to the public entity defendant, and be acted upon or deemed rejected by operation of law, before the plaintiff can sue for money or damages on a cause of action that requires a claim. Here, the plaintiff filed his initial suit in violation of that statute. But a plaintiff may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed. The amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint after the claim denial, which superseded his original complaint. He therefore demonstrated substantial compliance with the claim presentation requirement. The court cited other cases permitting premature complaints to substantially comply with section 945.4. It rejected the argument that the California Supreme Court has rejected the substantial compliance rule by applying strict compliance with the statute regarding claim recipients. The statutory objectives of section 945.4 have been met, since the entity would not incur any litigation expenses until after it had considered and rejected the claim. The court emphasized that its holding was narrow.
Comments