Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist.
B272340
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Olson, a Mira Costa teacher and varsity baseball coach, was investigated in 2012 after parent complaints; the investigators’ original report largely found the abuse claims unfounded and recommended retention with coaching on demeanor.
- MBUSD Superintendent Matthews allegedly produced a revised report omitting favorable material and later provided the revised report to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). The CTC recommended a 30‑day suspension of Olson’s credential.
- Olson sued MBUSD and Matthews for defamation and deceit, alleging the rewritten report harmed his reputation and led to CTC discipline.
- Olson did not file a government claim under the Government Claims Act; instead he filed a union grievance under the CBA (seeking a clearing letter and temporary paid reassignment) and pursued arbitration; grievance remained pending when suit was filed.
- MBUSD demurred, asserting failure to comply with the Government Claims Act, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Olson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a union grievance substantially complies with Gov. Claims Act filing requirements | Olson: the grievance put MBUSD on notice and thus substantially complied | MBUSD: grievance is a different procedure, not a served government claim—no attempt to file a claim | Court: No—substantial compliance requires a presented (even imperfect) claim; Olson never served a claim and grievance lacks required claim content |
| Whether the grievance qualifies as a "claim as presented" | Olson: grievance (and his statement he would keep fighting) put MBUSD on notice of claims and potential litigation | MBUSD: grievance neither demanded money nor threatened litigation; it sought contractual remediation | Court: No—the grievance did not disclose a claim for money or an intent to litigate; it described a CBA dispute, not defamation/deceit claims |
| Whether futility excuses failure to file a government claim | Olson: filing a claim would have been futile because MBUSD would have denied it | MBUSD: futility is not a statutory exception to the claim filing rule and is improper here | Court: No—futility is not a recognized exception to the claim filing requirement; even if it were, SAC didn’t allege MBUSD declared its intended denial |
| Whether dismissal for failure to comply with Gov. Claims Act was proper | Olson: doctrines above excuse noncompliance | MBUSD: noncompliance is fatal; doctrines inapplicable | Court: Dismissal affirmed—none of Olson’s doctrines apply; claims barred for failure to present a government claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (2002) (standard of review for demurrer dismissal: de novo review and accept pleadings as true)
- City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (2007) (failure to timely present a claim bars suit against public entity; purposes of claim statute)
- Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist., 49 Cal.3d 699 (1989) (when a document discloses a claim and threatens litigation, it may be a "claim as presented")
- Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, 220 Cal.App.3d 702 (1990) (doctrine of substantial compliance applies only where a defective claim was actually presented)
- Alliance Financial v. City and County of San Francisco, 64 Cal.App.4th 635 (1998) (definition and effect of a "claim as presented")
- Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com., 34 Cal.3d 412 (1983) (futility is a narrow exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies)