Navarro v. City of Alameda
3:14-cv-01954
N.D. Cal.Sep 22, 2014Background
- Navarro, a 42-year-old mentally and physically disabled man, alleges Officer Patrick Wyeth (City of Alameda) violently beat him on July 27, 2012; suit removed to federal court.
- Operative pleading: second amended complaint asserting nine causes of action; defendants moved to dismiss the 8th (Unruh Act) and 9th (Disabled Persons Act) claims.
- The 8th and 9th claims assert the violence occurred "on account of" Navarro’s disabilities and that he was denied reasonable accommodations.
- Defendants argue Navarro failed to comply with California Tort Claims Act notice requirements (Gov. Code §§ 911.2 et seq.); plaintiff’s original September 24, 2012 claim letter described only injuries from excessive force and made no mention of disability or failure to accommodate.
- Court took judicial notice of the original claim letter, a February 2014 amendment letter, and the City’s February 25, 2014 return-of-claim letter; held the original notice did not put the City on notice of disability-based claims and that the statutory filing deadlines had passed.
- Court dismissed the 8th and 9th causes of action with prejudice because the Tort Claims Act noncompliance is jurisdictional and the defect could not be cured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Navarro’s Unruh and Disabled Persons Act claims were barred for failure to present a timely claim under the California Tort Claims Act | Navarro argued he substantially complied with the claims statute and attempted to amend before final action; also argued lack of prejudice and waiver by City | City argued the September 2012 claim made no reference to disability or failure to accommodate, so new disability-based claims are untimely and barred | Dismissed: court held Navarro failed to comply with the Tort Claims Act; disability-based claims were not fairly included in the original claim and are time-barred |
| Whether the substantial-compliance doctrine saves Navarro’s new theories (failure-to-accommodate/discrimination) | Navarro relied on substantial compliance doctrine (Santee) and similar cases | City relied on authority showing substantial compliance does not apply where original claim gave no notice of the new theory (e.g., Fall River) | Denied: court found Fall River dispositive and concluded plaintiff did not substantially comply |
| Whether an amendment submitted after six months but before "final action" preserved the claim | Navarro claimed an amendment before final action under Gov. Code § 910.6(a) preserved claims | City showed the claim was deemed rejected by operation of law within statutory period, and amendments came too late | Denied: court concluded statutory deadlines had passed and amendment was untimely |
| Whether defendants waived untimeliness defense or were prejudiced by late notice | Navarro argued City waived defense under § 911.3(b) and suffered no prejudice | City contended it substantially complied with notice obligations and informed Navarro the late claim would be futile | Rejected: court found no waiver, no controlling authority on prejudice argument, and treated compliance as jurisdictional prerequisite |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standards)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend standard on dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Fall River Joint Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 3d 431 (Cal. Ct. App.) (substantial compliance inapplicable where original claim gave no notice of new theory)
- Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 220 Cal. App. 3d 702 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussing substantial compliance doctrine)
- Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal. App. 3d 183 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to file claim is fatal to action)