Opinion ID: 821520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government Claims Act

Text: Suits for money or damages filed against a public entity are regulated by statutes contained in division 3.6 of the Government Code, commonly referred to as the Government Claims Act. We have previously noted that “[s]ection 905 requires the presentation of „all claims for money or damages against local public entities,‟ subject to exceptions not relevant here. Claims for personal injury and 5 property damage must be presented within six months after accrual; all other claims must be presented within a year. (§ 911.2.) „[N]o suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon . . . or has been deemed to have been rejected . . . .‟ (§ 945.4.) „Thus, under these statutes, failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.‟ [Citation.]” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 737-738 (City of Stockton).) Section 905 requires that, subject to exceptions not present here, “all claims for money or damages against local public entities” must be “presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910)” of the Government Code. “ „Local public entity‟ includes a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State . . . .” (§ 900.4.) Section 915(a) provides, “A claim . . . shall be presented to a local public entity by either of the following means: [¶] (1) Delivering it to the clerk, secretary or auditor thereof. [¶] (2) Mailing it to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office.” Section 915(e)(1) clearly and narrowly sets forth how actual receipt may meet the presentation requirement: “A claim . . . shall be deemed to have been presented in compliance with this section even though it is not delivered or mailed as provided in this section if, within the time prescribed for presentation thereof, any of the following apply: [¶] (1) It is actually received by the clerk, secretary, auditor or board of the local public entity.” (Italics added.) Even if the public entity has actual knowledge of facts that might support a claim, the claims statutes still must be satisfied. (City of Stockton, supra, 42 6 Cal.4th at p. 738.) “The filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 767 (Del Real), italics added; Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (Shirk).) A goal of the Government Claims Act is to eliminate confusion and uncertainty resulting from different claims procedures. (Recommendation: Claims Against Public Entities (Dec. 1963) 4 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1963) p. 1008.) As we pointed out in City of Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at page 738, “[t]he purpose of the claims statutes is not to prevent surprise, but „to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity‟s actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.‟ [Citation.] The claims statutes also „enable the public entity to engage in fiscal planning for potential liabilities and to avoid similar liabilities in the future.‟ [Citations.]” Moreover, the intent of the Government Claims Act is “not to expand the rights of plaintiffs against government entities. Rather, the intent of the act is to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances.” (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776; State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1242-1243.) The claimant bears the burden of ensuring that the claim is presented to the appropriate public entity. (Life v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 894, 901 (Life).)8 8 In Shirk, supra, 42 Cal.4th at page 213, we summarized the public policies supporting strict application of the claims presentation requirements: “Requiring a (footnote continued on next page) 7