Court Opinion

ID: 9402535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 23:04:29.298272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.593742
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/23/23; Certified for Publication 6/15/23 (order attached)

               IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                    THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                  (Sacramento)
                                                         ----

 RATILAL SHAH,

                   Plaintiff and Appellant,                                C094482

          v.                                                        (Super. Ct. No. 34-2019-
                                                                    00268813-CU-FR-GDS)
 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES et al.,

                   Defendants and Respondents.

         Ratilal Shah sued the California Department of Transportation and the State Merit
Award Board (Board), alleging the Board wrongfully denied him cash awards for
suggestions that saved the state money. The California Department of Human Resources
(CalHR), acting on behalf of the Board,1 filed a demurrer, claiming the action is barred

1 The Board functions under the umbrella of CalHR. (Gov. Code, § 19823, subd. (d).)
Although CalHR maintains that the Board cannot be named as a defendant, we need not
resolve that issue because CalHR is defending the action on behalf of the Board and Shah
makes no argument that any distinction between the Board and CalHR is material to the
outcome of the appeal.

                                                          1
by the limitations period in Government Code section 19815.8.2 The trial court agreed
and dismissed the complaint as to the Board.
       Shah now contends the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations and that,
applying the proper statute of limitations, the action is not time-barred.
       Finding no error, we will affirm the judgment.
                                     BACKGROUND
       The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly sustained CalHR’s
demurrer based on the statute of limitations. We provide facts as reflected in Shah’s
complaint.3
       The State’s Employee Suggestion Program provided state employees cash
awards for suggestions that saved the state money. The program awarded to an employee
20 percent of the cost savings, up to a maximum of $50,000 per suggestion.
       Shah, an employee of the Department of Transportation, made three cost-saving
suggestions through the Employee Suggestion Program. The suggestions saved the state
millions of dollars and the state recommended three awards of $50,000 for each
suggestion. However, the awards were later reevaluated and denied. Shah appealed
to the Board.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.

3 CalHR’s request for judicial notice of a minute order (exhibit A) filed in the trial
court after the notice of appeal was filed in this case is denied because the order is not
relevant to a material issue on appeal. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.
(2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.) CalHR’s request for judicial notice of the legislative
history (enactment and amendment dates) of statutes relevant to this appeal (exhibits B
& C) is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)

                                              2
       On October 24, 2018, the Board issued its final decision denying Shah’s
appeal and upholding the denial of the awards. Shah filed a government claim on
April 19, 2019, but the state never acted on it.
       On November 13, 2019, Shah initiated this lawsuit, asserting causes of action for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of trade secrets. CalHR
demurred to the complaint, asserting, among other things, that the action is barred under
the one-year limitation period set forth in section 19815.8, relating to actions against
CalHR. The trial court sustained CalHR’s demurrer, disagreeing with Shah’s argument
that the applicable limitation period is two years under section 945.6, subdivision (a)(2),
relating to claims against the government. The trial court dismissed the complaint as to
the Board.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Section 19815.8, subdivision (a) provides that an action based on any law
administered by CalHR must be commenced within one year after the cause of action
first arose. Whereas section 945.6, part of the Government Claims Act, requires a suit to
be filed against a public entity within two years after the action accrued if the plaintiff
was required to file a government claim and no written notice of a decision was given.
(See City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 734 (City of Stockton)
[referring to the claims statutes as the “Government Claims Act,” instead of the “Tort
Claims Act”].)
       There is no dispute as to the following:
       1. That to the extent Shah has causes of action, they first arose on October 24,
2018, when the Board denied Shah’s appeal of the decision rejecting his claims.
       2. Shah filed this action about 13 months later on November 13, 2019.
       3. This action is based on a law administered by CalHR. (See Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 2, §§ 599.604, 599.655, subd. (e).)

                                              3
       4. Shah was required to file a government claim under section 911.2 of the
Government Claims Act.
       On this record, we must determine which limitations period controls, applying
canons of statutory interpretation.
       It is settled that a specific statute of limitations takes precedence over a more
general statute of limitations. “[W]hen a general and [a] particular provision are
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a
general one that is inconsistent with it.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1859.) Here, it appears
section 945.6 is the more general provision. It is part of the Government Claims Act
which, with just a few exceptions, requires presentation of claims, including for breach
of contract, against a public entity before the claimant may file suit. The Act applies
broadly to include most claims against a public entity in California. (§§ 905, 945.4;
City of Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 738.) On the other hand, section 19815.8
applies only to claims related to a law administered by CalHR. (§ 19815.8, subd. (a).)
Because it applies only to a specific and smaller subset of claims against public entities,
section 19815.8 is the more specific statute of limitations and takes precedence over
section 945.6 of the Government Claims Act.
       Another canon of statutory interpretation is that a shorter limitations period takes
precedence over a longer one unless the statutes can be harmonized. (Royalty Carpet
Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1114.) Neither party suggests
the two statutes can be harmonized; therefore, section 19815.8, being the shorter
limitations period, takes precedence.
       Shah argues the shorter limitations period is actually the six-month claims notice
period required by section 911.2, subdivision (a). The argument is unconvincing because
section 911.2, subdivision (a) applies only to the filing of a government claim under the
Government Claims Act, not to the initiation of a court action. Shah asserts that if he is
required to file a claim under the Government Claims Act, he should reap the benefit of

                                              4
the two-year limitations period in the Act. He offers no authority for this proposition
other than the language of the Government Claims Act, but the Act itself does not resolve
which of two facially applicable limitations periods should control. We know of no
authority prioritizing the limitations periods in the Government Claims Act over
other limitations periods. Rather, such a determination might render meaningless
section 19815.8 because any claim related to a law administered by CalHR would
arguably also be subject to the Government Claims Act. Shah suggests no circumstance
when that would not be true. We decline to interpret the statutes in a manner that renders
one meaningless. (See Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 556, 568.)
       The trial court was correct in concluding that the one-year limitations period in
section 19815.8 bars Shah’s action.
                                        DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

                                                    /S/
                                                 MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /S/
RENNER, J.

                                             5
Filed 6/15/23

                              CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                               THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                         (Sacramento)
                                             ----

 RATILAL SHAH,

                  Plaintiff and Appellant,                         C094482

          v.                                               (Super. Ct. No. 34-2019-
                                                           00268813-CU-FR-GDS)
 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES et al.,
                                                           ORDER GRANTING
                  Defendants and Respondents.             REQUEST TO PUBLISH

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County,
Shama Mesiwala, Judge. Affirmed.

       Knypstra & Zermeno, Bradley P. Knypstra and Maggie R. Simoneaux-Cuaso
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

      Frolan R. Aguiling, Sandra L. Lusich, Stephanie L. Flynton, Elizabeth P. Krehe,
and Christopher E. Thomas for Defendants and Respondents.

                                              1
THE COURT:
       The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on May 23, 2023, was not certified
for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now appears that the opinion
should be published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered.

FOR THE COURT:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

   /S/
MAURO, J.

    /S/
RENNER, J.

                                             2