E.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District
194 Cal. App. 4th 736
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff E.M., born October 1990, was sexually molested by a basketball coach (LaBeach) while a minor.
- LaBeach pled guilty/no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with plaintiff; placed on felony probation for three years.
- Plaintiff filed a government tort claim with the District on June 11, 2008, asserting damages related to LaBeach's acts through September 2007.
- District denied the claim as untimely, citing the six-month claiming period under Gov. Code § 911.2 and related sections.
- Plaintiff applied on August 4, 2008 for leave to present a late claim under § 911.4 and § 911.6, asserting minor status and accrual in September 2007.
- District denied the late-claim application on September 25, 2008; plaintiff filed a tort action on February 25, 2009 and a petition for relief under § 946.6 in 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial claim was timely under § 911.2 | Plaintiff argues accrual occurred in Sept. 2007; the claim filed June 11, 2008 was untimely but cured by later procedures. | District contends the June 11, 2008 claim was untimely and not cured by later procedures. | Initial claim untimely; timeliness cured by late-claim provisions for a minor. |
| Application for leave to present a late claim timely for a minor | Because plaintiff was a minor, § 911.6(b)(2) mandates grant if filed within one year of accrual; August 4, 2008 falls inside that window. | District argues late-claim application should be denied or not timely granted; delays prejudice the District. | Late-claim application timely and should have been granted under § 911.6(b)(2). |
| Effect of District’s erroneous denial of the late-claim application | Withdrawal of the need for relief petition; timely late-claim supports filing suit within six months of denial. | Relief under § 946.6 is the proper remedy after denial, not automatic reinstatement of suit. | Erroneous denial did not preclude timely filing of suit; relief not required for timeliness. |
| Timeliness of the resulting lawsuit | Filing February 25, 2009 was within six months of September 25, 2008 denial; timely. | Timeliness disputed due to earlier petition for relief delays. | Lawsuit timely under § 945.6(a)(1). |
| Overall outcome on claim presentation under the Tort Claims Act | The claim presentation requirements were satisfied; the action should be reinstated. | Procedural defects and late filings warrant dismissal unless properly cured. | Plaintiff satisfied the claims presentation requirements; order of dismissal reversed and remanded to reinstate the action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2007) (timeliness and accrual under Tort Claims Act; claims as condition precedent)
- Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1020 (Cal. 1986) (minor-specific late-claim timing; special solicitude for minors)
- Tammen v. County of San Diego, 66 Cal.2d 468 (Cal. 1967) (early authority on late-claim rules for minors)
- Whitfield v. Roth, 10 Cal.3d 874 (Cal. 1974) (historical support for minor-related late-claim provisions)
- John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 48 Cal.3d 437 (Cal. 1989) (equitable tolling considerations in claims against schools)
- Frost v. State of California, 247 Cal.App.2d 378 (Cal. App. 1966) (state tort claims statutes; historical context)