211 Cal. App. 4th 1100
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Pena sued Bjorndal in 2002 for retaliatory termination among other claims; the case proceeded mostly in federal court.
- After a prolonged federal action and appeals, Pena amended the state suit in 2011 to allege a single claim under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Gov. Code § 8547 et seq.).
- Bjorndal demurred claiming Pena failed to file a timely administrative complaint with the State Personnel Board as required by § 8547.8; the trial court allowed equitable tolling to excuse the delay.
- Pena filed a new first amended complaint in the state action in July 2011, stating the administrative complaint was timely tolled by the federal litigation.
- The administrative prerequisite is a 12-month deadline to file with the Personnel Board; Pena’s board filing occurred in 2011, over nine years late.
- The court ultimately held equitable tolling and relation back do not save Pena’s administrative deadline, and directed sustaining the demurrer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling extends the § 8547.8 administrative deadline. | Pena contends tolling applies during federal proceedings. | Bjorndal argues tolling cannot extend the administrative deadline. | Equitable tolling does not extend the administrative deadline. |
| Whether equitable tolling can suspend the administrative deadline while litigating a related suit. | Pena argues tolling should apply because of ongoing federal litigation. | Bjorndal contends tolling cannot be used to bypass administrative requirements. | Tolling to extend the administrative deadline while pursuing a judicial remedy is not permissible. |
| Whether relation back preserves Pena's Act claim despite late administrative filing. | Pena seeks relation back to avoid the administrative deadline. | Bjorndal argues relation back cannot excuse administrative compliance. | Relation back does not save Pena's administrative claim. |
| Whether the Act's explicit administrative prerequisites are mandatory and preclude tolling or relation back. | Plaintiff relies on tolling and relation back as exceptions. | Defendant asserts mandatory compliance with § 8547.8 before suit. | Legislative text requires timely administrative filing; tolling and relation back not allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Addison v. State of California, 21 Cal.3d 313 (1978) (tolling when pursuing alternative remedies; not applicable here for administrative deadline tolling)
- McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist., 45 Cal.4th 88 (2008) (tolling of judicial statutes of limitations; not tolling administrative deadlines)
- Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal.4th 363 (2003) (legislative intention controls tolling; precludes tolling when inconsistent with statute)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. City and County of San Francisco, 174 Cal.App.4th 1201 (2009) (tax refund administrative claims; tolling precluded by statutory text)
- Arbuckle State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 963 (2009) (administrative findings not binding in later judicial proceedings)
- State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 963 (2009) (administrative findings not binding; supports view on admissibility of findings)
- Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners, 145 Cal.App.3d 826 (1983) (tolling when pursuing workers’ compensation claim)
- Collier v. City of Pasadena, 142 Cal.App.3d 917 (1983) (tolling when pursuing alternative remedy)
- Baillargeon v. Department of Water & Power, 69 Cal.App.3d 670 (1977) (tolling when pursuing workers’ compensation claim)