In A.S. v. Palmdale School District, published August 28, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 affirmed dismissal of a personal injury suit against a school on demurrer. On March 5, 2019, an elementary school teacher allegedly grabbed the minor plaintiff's arm and twisted it, resulting in an injury. The next day, the plaintiff's mother went to the school to file a complaint. The receptionist told her to go to the school district. She went to the district office. The receptionist told the mother that the assistant superintendent had instructed her to give the mother a form entitled "Complaint Form--Employee Student Issue." The mother asked if there were any other forms she needed to complete. The receptionist said the assistant superintendent had only instructed her to provide that form. The mother took the form home and completed it. In the form, she described the incident, her son's injury, and the medical treatment. She complained about the school's investigation, and alleged the principal was biased. She suggested that a thorough district level, unbiased investigation be conducted, and that the teacher receive discipline. She returned, gave the form to the assistant superintendent, and asked if there were any other documents or paperwork to complete. He said there were none, and promised a full inquiry would be made and he would be in touch with her. On February 25, 2020, the minor, now represented by counsel, filed suit. He alleged that he had complied with the Government Claims Act, and attached a copy of the school complaint as an exhibit to the complaint. The district demurred three times to the complaint, on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the Government Claims Act. The first two demurrers were sustained with leave. The third was sustained without leave, and the action was dismissed.
The appellate court ruled that the demurrer was properly sustained. The school complaint form did not substantially comply with the claims requirement. A document does not substantially comply with the claims requirement where it entirely omits a claim element required by Government Code section 910. Under section 910, the claim must show the amount claimed if under $10,000; and if over $10,000 shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. The form specified several administrative actions the plaintiff wanted the district to take, but did not state he was seeking monetary damages and made no attempt to estimate the amount of damages or state whether the claim would be a limited case. It therefore did not substantially comply with the claim requirements. The district did not waive noncompliance as an affirmative defense by failing to serve a Notice of Noncompliance under Government Code section 910.8. A public entity must serve such a notice to object to a deficiency in a document that serves as a "claim as presented." The most important element of a "claim as presented" is that it discloses the existence of a claim against the defendant that, if not satisfied, will result in litigation. The complaint form here in no way suggested he was seeking compensation or was threatening litigation. The court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the district was equitably estopped from asserting noncompliance because the assistant superintendent represented that the complaint form was the only form needed. Even if those statements could have estopped the district while the claimant was unrepresented, the law recognizes that circumstances may change and render estoppel no longer appropriate. Here, the claimant obtained counsel and filed suit within the time to apply to the district for leave to present a late claim. The counsel was charged with knowledge of the law in California, including the Government Claims Act. Further, the allegations of the complaint showed that the counsel was actually aware of the claim presentation requirement. The plaintiff was charged with his attorney's knowledge of the claim presentation requirement. He therefore could not satisfy the ignorance or reliance elements of equitable estoppel. Although the record did not show the exact date the attorney was retained, he filed the suit within one year of the incident, showing that the claimant knew of the claim requirement within the one-year period to apply for leave to present a late claim.
Comments