Perez v. Golden Empire Transit District
209 Cal. App. 4th 1228
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Maria Dolores Jimenez Perez sues Transit District for injuries from exiting a bus on July 15, 2009.
- Issue is whether plaintiff properly alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act or failed to comply.
- Transit District demurrer argued lack of date in claim under § 910(c), lack of notice of omission, and no amended claim.
- First amended complaint alleged a District representative notified plaintiff there was no date and plaintiff later provided the date, claiming compliance.
- Trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend; appellate review followed.
- Court reverses, holding general allegation of timely filing plus permissive amendment can plead compliance; demurrer should be overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May compliance be pled generally under CCP § 459? | Jimenez Perez pleads general compliance with the claims statute. | Transit District treats compliance as requiring specific facts. | General compliance pleading permitted |
| Does paragraph 18 contradict the general compliance allegation? | Paragraph 18 supports compliance by showing date provided. | Paragraph 18 implies no proper amendment or cure. | Pleading analyzed under liberal construction; not dispositive; may allege valid compliance |
| Can a late-provided date cure a missing-date defect under § 910? | Date supplied after initial claim shows compliance/cure. | No clear amendment showing proper cure; defect remains on face. | Ambiguity resolved in plaintiff's favor; potential amendment under § 910.6 |
| What is the proper standard of review for a demurrer asserting claim defects under the Government Claims Act? | De novo review with liberal construction in plaintiff's favor. | Court should construe allegations strictly against plaintiff. | De novo review with liberal construction; favor plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- State of California v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 1234 (2004) (claims as prerequisite to action; pleading performance principle)
- Ley v. Babcock, 118 Cal.App.5th 527 (1931) (permit pleading compliance generally under § 459)
- Connelly v. County of Fresno, 146 Cal.App.4th 29 (2006) (substantial compliance; duty to warn deficiencies)
- City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (2007) (statutory claim requirements; pleading sufficiency and remedies)
- Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority, 34 Cal.4th 441 (2004) (purpose of claim notice: enable investigation and settlement)
- Mendoza v. County of Tulare, 128 Cal.App.3d 403 (1982) (distinguishes between pleading sufficiency and actual proof of compliance)
- City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare, 41 Cal.4th 859 (2007) (interpretation of pleadings; general vs. specific allegations)
- Skopp v. Weaver, 16 Cal.3d 432 (1976) (specific allegations control over inconsistent general ones)
- San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.3d 843 (1988) (purpose of claim for dangerous conditions and defenses)