Opinion ID: 1371302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ability to satisfy the claims statutes

Text: Defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion in certifying this purported class because the claims statutes prohibit maintenance of class actions against governmental entities for inverse condemnation and nuisance. It contends a class claim can never be filed which would fulfill the statutory requirements, relying on language to this effect in Bozaich v. State of California (1973) 32 Cal. App.3d 688 [108 Cal. Rptr. 392]. In considering defendant's contention we start from certain well-settled foundations: In actions for damages against local public entities, the claims statutes require timely filing of a proper claim as condition precedent to the maintenance of the action. (Gov. Code, §§ 905, 945.4; County of San Luis Obispo v. Ranchita Cattle Co. (1971) 16 Cal. App.3d 383, 390 [94 Cal. Rptr. 73].) (3) Compliance with the claims statutes is mandatory ( Farrell v. County of Placer (1944) 23 Cal.2d 624, 630 [145 P.2d 570, 153 A.L.R. 323]); and failure to file a claim is fatal to the cause of action. ( Johnson v. City of Oakland (1961) 188 Cal. App.2d 181, 183 [10 Cal. Rptr. 409].) (4) The claims statutes provisions apply to actions brought both for nuisance and for inverse condemnation. ( Bellman v. County of Contra Costa (1960) 54 Cal.2d 363, 369 [5 Cal. Rptr. 692, 353 P.2d 300]; Dorow v. Santa Clara County Flood Control Dist. (1970) 4 Cal. App.3d 389, 391 [84 Cal. Rptr. 518]; Mosesian v. County of Fresno (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 493, 495 [104 Cal. Rptr. 655].) The fact that inverse condemnation is founded directly on the California Constitution (art. I, § 14) neither excuses plaintiffs from compliance with the claims statutes ( Powers Farms v. Consolidated Irr. Dist. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 123, 126 [119 P.2d 717]; Dorow v. Santa Clara County Flood Control Dist., supra, 4 Cal. App.3d 389, 391-392), nor renders the claims statutes unconstitutional. ( Crescent Wharf etc. Co. v. Los Angeles (1929) 207 Cal. 430 [278 P. 1028]; [4] Dorow v. Santa Clara County Flood Control Dist., supra, 4 Cal. App.3d 389, 391-392.) Plaintiffs contend, and the trial court concluded, that the class claim filed here satisfied the claims statutes because the city had been provided with notice and information regarding the rights asserted against it, inasmuch as a number of individuals potentially within the class had filed claims against the city in the past few years. Hence, the city could not sustain a claim of surprise. We cannot accept this contention. (5) It is not the purpose of the claims statutes to prevent surprise. Rather, the purpose of these statutes is 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. ( Eastlick v. City of Los Angeles (1947) 29 Cal.2d 661, 667 [177 P.2d 558, 170 A.L.R. 225]; Jackson v. Board of Education (1967) 250 Cal. App.2d 856, 859 [58 Cal. Rptr. 763].) 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. Such knowledge  standing alone  constitutes neither substantial compliance nor basis for estoppel. ( Hall v. City of Los Angeles (1941) 19 Cal.2d 198, 203 [120 P.2d 13]; Powers Farms v. Consolidated Irr. Dist., supra, 19 Cal.2d 123, 130; Johnson v. City of Oakland, supra, 188 Cal. App.2d 181, 184; Allen v. L.A. City Board of Education (1959) 173 Cal. App.2d 126, 129 [343 P.2d 170]; Ghiozzi v. City of South San Francisco (1946) 72 Cal. App.2d 472, 476 [164 P.2d 902]; Eppstein v. City of Berkeley (1942) 52 Cal. App.2d 395, 397 [126 P.2d 365].) Thus, having rejected the trial court's rationale for finding the claim sufficient, we turn to defendant's contention that it is impossible for a class claim to satisfy the claims statutes and, therefore, the statutes prohibit the maintenance of such actions against governmental entities. The applicable claims statute (Gov. Code, § 910) provides in part: A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his behalf and shall show: [¶] (a) The name and post office address of the claimant; [¶] (b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent; [¶] (c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted; ... and [¶] (f) The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. In determining the quantity of information required in a class claim to satisfy the provisions of the above section, we note the cases gauging sufficiency of claims must be divided into two groups. The first treats claims where there has been some compliance with all the required elements  but compliance has been defective. (See, e.g., Rowan v. City etc. of San Francisco (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 308 [53 Cal. Rptr. 88] (described place of accident as 3350 Scott St. instead of 3358-3360 Scott St.); Johnson v. City of Oakland, supra, 188 Cal. App.2d 181 (indicated accident occurred in front of 1819 35th Avenue instead of 1819 34th Avenue); Johnson v. City of Los Angeles (1955) 134 Cal. App.2d 600 [285 P.2d 713] (indicated accident occurred on southeast corner instead of southwest corner of intersection); Sandstoe v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1938) 28 Cal. App.2d 215 [82 P.2d 216] (verified by father instead of claimant minor child).) In these cases the test of substantial compliance controls: Is there sufficient information disclosed on the face of the filed claim to reasonably enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it without the expense of a lawsuit? In the second group of cases the courts have been less lenient. Here, claims were successfully challenged for failure to comply entirely with a particular statutory requirement. (See, e.g., Hall v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 19 Cal.2d 198 (failure to state place of accident); Whitson v. LaPay (1957) 153 Cal. App.2d 584 [315 P.2d 45] (claim unverified); Ghiozzi v. City of South San Francisco, supra, 72 Cal. App.2d 472 (failure to state date and place of occurrence); Eppstein v. City of Berkeley, supra, 52 Cal. App.2d 395 (failure to state address of claimant).) In determining the sufficiency of such claims, the more liberal test of substantial compliance has not been applied  the courts recognizing [s]ubstantial compliance cannot be predicated upon no compliance. ( Hall v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 19 Cal.2d 198, 202; Johnson v. City of Oakland, supra, 188 Cal. App.2d 181, 183.) (6) From these two groups, we conclude that to gauge the sufficiency of a particular claim, two tests shall be applied: Is there some compliance with all of the statutory requirements; and, if so, is this compliance sufficient to constitute substantial compliance? To ascertain the quantity of information required in a class claim to satisfy the threshold some compliance test, we must first determine the meaning of claimant in section 910 as it relates to a class. There are two alternatives: Claimant can either be equated with each individual member of the class or with the class itself. (7) We conclude claimant, as used in section 910, must be equated with the class itself and therefore reject the suggested necessity for filing an individual claim for each member of the purported class. To require such detailed information in advance of the complaint would severely restrict the maintenance of appropriate class actions  contrary to recognized policy favoring them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382; see also Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 800.) We do not believe the claims statutes were intended to thwart class relief. [5] Moreover, treating the class as claimant is consistent with treatment of the class for purposes of filing the complaint. (8) While section 422.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to name the parties, it is settled the pleading need only establish the existence of an ascertainable class rather than name each member of the class. ( Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 706 [63 Cal. Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732].) (9) Thus, to satisfy the claims statutes, the class claim must provide the name, address, and other specified information concerning the representative plaintiff and then sufficient information to identify and make ascertainable the class itself. Because such information would meet the statutory requirements of name and address, any effort to identify the class would satisfy the some compliance test. Beyond this, the sufficiency of the identifying information must be measured by the substantial compliance test. It is therefore clear a class claim may satisfy the claims statutes requirements. (10) Thus, we conclude these statutes do not prohibit class actions against governmental entities for inverse condemnation and nuisance. However, defendant next argues that even if some class claims satisfy the claims statutes, the claim filed here failed to do so because the description of the class as those people similarly situated is insufficient to constitute substantial compliance. While, as noted above, we cannot accept the no surprise rationale by which the trial court approved the claim filed here, we need not decide whether this claim was sufficient. Extraordinary relief is not available to remedy defective compliance with claims statutes. ( County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 545, 547-551 [94 Cal. Rptr. 158, 483 P.2d 774]; Redlands etc. Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 348, 360 [125 P.2d 490].)