In City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court (County of Santa Cruz), published April 16, 2024, the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a writ directing the trial court to sustain the defendant city's demurrer to the county's complaint. The county sued the city for damages for emergency repairs to an area located within the city's jurisdiction. The county alleged the repairs were required by the city's failure to maintain and manage the area. The county alleged that it was not required to present a claim for damages before suing the city, because Government Code section 905, subdivision (i) exempts from the Government Claims Act's claim-presentation requirements lawsuits by one local public entity against another. The city demurred on the ground that the city's municipal code required the county to present a claim before suing the city for damages. The county contended that the city's ordinance did not apply, because the ordinance states that it only applies to claims that are “not governed by California Government Code section 905 . . . .” The county contended that its causes of action against the city are governed by Government Code section 905, and so are not governed by the ordinance. The city contended that it adopted the ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 935, which empowers local public entities to establish their own policies and procedures for presentation of claims that are exempted by section 905, and that the ordinance covers all claims excepted from section 905. The trial court agreed with the county's argument, and overruled the demurrer.
The appellate court ruled that the trial court interpretation of the ordinance was incorrect. Government Code section 905 both states the rule requirement the claims presentation requirement and creates a number of exceptions to it. Subdivision (i) is one such exception. Section 935 specifically empowers local public entities to establish their own policies and procedures for the presentation of those claims against them that are excepted by section 905 and not governed by any other statutes or regulations expressly related thereto. The prescribed procedure may include a requirement that a claim be presented and acted upon as a prerequisite to suit thereon. The phrase in the ordinance “not governed by California Government Code section 905” considered in isolation could be construed to be ambiguous. But when considered in relation to the rest of the language of the ordinance, which includes an express statement of the City’s intent in adopting the ordinance, the proper interpretation of the phrase is that the ordinance imposes a claim presentation requirement for those claims excepted by section 905. The ordinance the City’s ordinance applies to “[c]laims against the City of Santa Cruz for money or damages which are not governed by California Government Code section 905 and which are not governed by any other statutes or regulations expressly related thereto.” If section 905 governs all claims for money or damages against a local public entity, including claims excepted under section 905, than the ordinance's reference to claims not governed by section 905 would be superfluous, because the ordinance already applies to claims "not governed by any other statutes or regulations." The most plausible and reasonable interpretation of the ordinance is that the City included the "governed by" phrase to cover all claims that would be excepted by section 905. Further the city's ordinance expresses a clear intent to broadly require all claims for money or damages to be presented to the City before a lawsuit may be filed. The ordinance states that “[n]o suit for money or damages may be brought against the City of Santa Cruz until a written claim therefore has been presented to the City Council and has been acted upon or has been deemed to have been rejected by the City Council, in accordance with this section.” There is no reason the city would create a claims presentation ordinance that would expressly exclude claims that section 905 expressly excludes from the claims presentation requirement. The court declines to engage in an overly technical parsing of one inartfully worded phrase that would reach a result contrary to the ordinance's obvious overall meaning. Additionally, the the language of the City’s ordinance closely tracks the language of section 935. The similarity in language was intended to create a local claim presentation requirement in accordance with the City’s authority under
section 935 and to encompass those claims excepted from the claim presentation requirement under section 905. The court rejected the argument that the ordinance had to expressly reference section 935 to effectuate section 935. Additionally, claims presentation ordinances by local public entities are common in California, and many use language similar to the ordinance. And at least one other appellate court assumed a similarly-worded ordinance applies to claims excepted by section 905. Finally, there was no dispute that the primary purpose of the county's suit was to obtain damages. The claim presentation requirement therefore applies to the suit.
Comments