Santos v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
B278391
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- On March 17, 2014 an LASPD vehicle allegedly ran a red light and injured plaintiffs Jennalyn Santos and Douglas Morales; they received an LASPD business card at the scene listing LASPD contact info and Sgt. J. Ivankay.
- Counsel filed a government claim initially with the City of Los Angeles; the City denied it saying LASPD was a separate public entity; counsel then filed a form downloaded from the LASPD website and mailed it to LASPD.
- Plaintiffs sued LASPD and its officer; after obtaining a traffic collision report showing LAUSD as owner/insurer of the vehicle, plaintiffs amended to add LAUSD as a defendant.
- LAUSD moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs never presented a government claim to LAUSD and LASPD is a department of LAUSD, so the LASPD filing did not satisfy the Government Claims Act.
- Plaintiffs opposed on equitable estoppel grounds, producing evidence that LASPD materials and an LASPD lieutenant told counsel to file a claim via the LASPD "Service Complaint Form," and LASPD website described LASPD as a “separate entity.”
- The trial court granted summary judgment for LAUSD, finding plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on LASPD representations; the Court of Appeal reversed, finding triable issues on equitable estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a claim with LASPD satisfied the Government Claims Act for a claim against LAUSD | Santos: LASPD or its employees misled plaintiffs to believe LASPD was a separate entity and told counsel to file via LASPD, so LAUSD should be estopped from asserting noncompliance | LAUSD: LASPD is a department of LAUSD; claim must be presented to LAUSD; LASPD filing insufficient | Triable issue of fact exists whether LAUSD is estopped; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether equitable estoppel may be raised though not pleaded in FAC | Plaintiffs: trial court allowed consideration and could have granted leave to amend; merits should be reached | LAUSD: estoppel not pleaded so barred | Court treated estoppel as properly considered and resolved on merits; plaintiffs not barred |
| Whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on LASPD representations (objective reasonableness) | Plaintiffs: business card, LASPD website, and LASPD lieutenant’s instructions made it reasonable to rely | LAUSD: website wording, report identifying LAUSD, and form title should have put counsel on notice that LASPD was not separate | Court: reasonable reliance is a triable issue given the totality of misleading indicia; not decided as matter of law |
| Whether plaintiffs exercised diligence to obtain the LAPD collision report that identified LAUSD | Plaintiffs: counsel repeatedly requested the LAPD report but LAPD could not locate it until after filing; therefore counsel acted diligently | LAUSD: counsel should have obtained/report put them on notice earlier | Court: disputes over diligence create triable issues precluding summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Fredrichsen v. City of Lakewood, 6 Cal.3d 353 (1971) (public entity may be estopped where it misleads claimant about proper recipient of claim)
- John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 48 Cal.3d 438 (1989) (estoppel may bar public entity from asserting claims statute defenses when agents deter filing)
- City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730 (2007) (failure to timely present a government claim bars suit against a public entity)
- DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara, 55 Cal.4th 983 (2012) (claim not presented to statutorily designated recipient does not satisfy Claims Act)
- Life v. County of Los Angeles, 227 Cal.App.3d 894 (1991) (attorney cannot reasonably rely on unnamed clerk’s advice to satisfy statutory presentation requirements)