Estill v. Cnty. of Shasta
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Renee Estill, a former Shasta County sheriff’s employee, alleged confidential internal‑affairs information and rumors about her were leaked in 2009–2010 and filed a government claim on February 23, 2012.
- The claim listed the incident date as September 2009 but expressly stated she “first became aware” on September 9, 2011; an attachment reiterated the 2011 discovery date and omitted prior knowledge.
- The County denied the claim on the merits (treating it as timely) and advised Estill she had six months to sue; Estill sued within that six‑month period.
- Defendants later discovered via deposition that Estill actually knew of the leaks and rumors as early as 2009–2010; defendants moved for summary judgment based on untimeliness and the federal privacy claim’s merits.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, but later granted Estill a new trial on the state claims, finding triable issues whether § 911.3 waiver applied; the Court of Appeal reversed the new‑trial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual/timeliness of state claims | Estill: discovery of wrongdoers occurred Sept. 9, 2011, so claims accrued then | Defs: Estill had notice/suspicion by 2009–2010 so accrual occurred earlier | Held: accrual occurred by July 2010; claim filed Feb. 2012 was untimely |
| § 911.3 waiver/notice duty | Estill: County should have warned her to apply for late‑claim relief under § 911.3(a) | County: claim was facially timely; no § 911.3 notice required | Held: County not required to give § 911.3 notice because Estill induced reliance by representing a 2011 discovery date |
| Equitable estoppel availability | Estill: estoppel inapplicable; waiver should protect her | County: estoppel bars her invocation of § 911.3 because she misled the County | Held: equitable estoppel applies as a matter of law — Estill is estopped from asserting waiver under § 911.3(b) |
| Failure to plead estoppel | Estill: County forfeited estoppel by not pleading it | County: could not reasonably foresee need to plead estoppel at time of answer | Held: failure to plead excused where party was unaware that estoppel would be central; estoppel may be raised later |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (de novo review of law on summary judgment)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (notice/suspicion triggers accrual)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (accrual not delayed by unknown defendant identity)
- Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist., 49 Cal.3d 699 (policy encouraging timely municipal investigation of claims)
- John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 48 Cal.3d 438 (equitable estoppel against public entity when its conduct prevents claim filing)
- DiCampli‑Mintz v. County of Santa Clara, 55 Cal.4th 983 (limits on relief from claims‑presentation requirements)
- Estate of Bonzi, 216 Cal.App.4th 1085 (elements and nature of equitable estoppel)