21 Cal. App. 5th 403
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff (Doe) alleges a teacher molested her as a minor; she filed suit under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 after the teacher's criminal conviction.
- Doe did not present a government claim to the school district before suing; she relied on Government Code § 905(m), which (added in 2008) excepts claims "pursuant to § 340.1" from the Government Claims Act claim-presentation requirement.
- The district had adopted Board Policy 3320 and Administrative Regulation 3320 requiring presentation of claims (including claims exempted by § 905) within six months of accrual, under authority of Government Code § 935.
- Petitioners demurred for failure to allege presentation of a timely claim (or an excuse for noncompliance) to the district; the trial court overruled the demurrer, concluding § 905(m) exempted § 340.1 claims from any prelitigation claim-presentation requirement.
- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief to address whether § 905(m) eliminated local claim-presentation requirements created under § 935 and whether Doe’s complaint pleaded compliance or an excuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 905(m) removes the obligation to present a prelitigation claim to local public entities for § 340.1 childhood-sexual-abuse claims | § 905(m) exempts childhood-sexual-abuse claims from claim presentation entirely, so Doe need not present a claim to the district | § 935 authorizes local entities to adopt claims procedures for categories excepted by § 905; district lawfully required claim presentation for § 340.1 claims | § 905(m) exempts § 340.1 claims from the state claims statute but does not repeal § 935; local entities may impose claim-presentation requirements under § 935 for claims exempted by § 905, including § 905(m) claims |
| Whether Doe's complaint survives demurrer absent allegations of compliance with (or excusal from) the district's claim-presentation requirement | Because § 905(m) removed any claim-presentation obligation, no allegation of district claim compliance was required | Even if exempt from the state statute, Doe still must allege compliance with the district's § 935-based claim rule or facts excusing noncompliance | Demurrer should have been sustained: Doe failed to allege compliance or an excuse for failing to present the district's required claim; dismissal ordered but court to consider leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 4 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 1993) (Government Claims Act limits waiver of immunity; claim-presentation requirements are conditions precedent)
- Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2007) (distinguished statute-of-limitations changes from claim-presentation requirements; claim-presentation deadline not a statute of limitations)
- Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007) (claims statutes must be satisfied even with public entity notice; overview of claim-presentation rules)
- Bodde v. State of Cal., 32 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2004) (presentation of a claim is a condition precedent; failure to allege compliance or excuse defeats the claim)
- California Sch. Employees Ass'n v. Azusa Unified Sch. Dist., 152 Cal.App.3d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (local entity may impose claim-presentation procedures for claims exempt from state statute under § 935)
- Tapia v. County of San Bernardino, 29 Cal.App.4th 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (statute creating substantive duty does not necessarily prescribe prelitigation claim procedures; § 935 can require presentation to local entity)
- Boy Scouts of Am. Nat'l Foundation v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (standards for writ review of demurrer and significant legal issues)