Know the rules in suits involving the Government Claims Act

The claim-presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, Div. 3.6, § 801 et seq.) are well known to those attorneys who defend public entities in litigation, less known to those attorneys who represent plaintiffs suing public entities, and little known to (or understood by) anyone else.

The claim-presentation statutes impose on the normal requirements for filing timely lawsuits against defendants an overlay of prelitigation claim-presentation deadlines and statutes of limitations that apply only to suits against public entities and their employees. Knowledge of those statutes, and the case law interpreting them, is vital when either prosecuting or defending against a cause of action subject to the act. And that knowledge must be up-to-date knowledge. The act is dynamic; the statutes that comprise it are occasionally amended, and the courts are continuously interpreting its requirements.

With that in mind, this article will provide a brief overview of the most important statutory and case law developments in the act during the last few years.

Late-claim relief

Some of the most important developments regarding the claims-presentation requirements have occurred in the rules for those seeking relief from those requirements. For causes of action that require prelitigation claims for damages to be presented to public entities within six months of the cause of action’s accrual – i.e., claims for death, personal injury, damage to personal property, or growing crops (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a)) – a claimant who misses the six-month period can apply to the public entity for leave to present a late claim, generally within a year of accrual (Gov. Code, § 911.4 to 911.8); and, if the application is denied, petition the superior court (within six months after application denial) for relief from the claim-presentation requirement (Gov. Code, § 946.6).

Government Code sections 911.6, subdivision (b) (application) and 946.6, subdivision (c) (petition) set forth an identical list of statutory grounds for relief. That list was expanded by 2021 amendments to both statutes. The previous versions of both statutes granted relief on the ground of minority only if the claimant was a minor throughout the six-month claim-presentation period. The amended sections 911.6(b) and 946.6(c) add a provision allowing a minor claimant who turns 18 during the claim period relief, provided the claimant presented a late-claim application to the public entity within six months of turning 18 or within one year of accrual, whichever occurred first. Similarly, the statutes previously granted relief on the ground of incapacity only if claimants were physically or mentally incapacitated throughout the claim-presentation period, and failed to present a timely claim because of the incapacity. The amended statutes allow a claimant who regains capacity during the claim period to still obtain relief due to incapacity, provided the claim was late because of the incapacity and the late-claim application to the entity was presented within six months of the incapacity ending or one year of accrual, whichever occurred first.

The courts have also recently rendered important decisions shaping entitlement to late-claim relief. In Lincoln Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (Jones) 45 Cal.App.5th 1079 (2020), the court held that a trial court has no power to grant a late-claim petition under Government Code section 946.6 based on a reason for the claim being late that was not first set forth in the claimant’s late-claim application to the public entity. In N.G. v. County of San Diego, 59 Cal.App.5th 63 (2020), the court held that a court is not required to grant a late-claim petition on the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect based on an expert witness’s conclusion that the claimant acted reasonably under the circumstances in failing to present a timely claim. Even if the expert evidence is undisputed, the court ruled, the expert opinion goes to the ultimate issue in the case, and so may be rejected.

In Coble v. Ventura County Health Care Agency, 73 Cal.App.5th 417 (2021), the court interpreted the multiple Executive Orders from the Governor that extended the claim-presentation statutes during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The court concluded that the orders extended the deadline for claims that accrued before June 30, 2021 by 120 days. The court further concluded that the deadlines extended by the Executive Orders did not include the one-year-from-accrual deadline for applying to the public entity for leave to present a late claim.

Simms v. Bear Valley Community Health Care Dist., 80 Cal.App.5th 391 (2022) noted the conflict in case law on whether a court may grant a Government Code section 946.6 late-claim petition on the ground that the claim is actually timely (e.g., due to delayed-discovery accrual) or only has jurisdiction to relieve claimants who present their claim late. The Simms court sided with courts allowing relief based on a finding that the claim was timely. But the court noted that where the issue is disputed, claim-timeliness may be more appropriate for a jury trial rather than a section 946.6 petition, which is a special proceeding in which jury trial is not permitted.

Multiple cases have distinguished the deadlines to present claims to public entities from statutes of limitations, holding that only deadlines to file suit with courts are statutes of limitations. One such case is Willis v. City of Carlsbad, 48 Cal.App.5th 1104 (2020), which holds that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies only to statute of limitations. The doctrine therefore cannot be applied to excuse untimely presentation of a claim.

Most recently, A.S. v. Palmdale School District, 94 Cal.App.5th 1091 (2023) held that a claimant could not obtain late-claim relief on the ground of equitable estoppel (based on the public entity defendant allegedly misleading the minor claimant’s mother on the claim-presentation requirements) where the claimant was represented by counsel during the period for applying to the entity for late-claim relief, and did not apply for that relief. Attorneys are charged with knowledge of the claim presentation requirements.

Statutes of limitation

The Government Claims Act sets forth statutes of limitations for filing suit that apply only to public entity and public employee defendants: Six months from a Government Code section 913 notice denying a claim (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1)); two years from accrual if the entity does not send a section 913 notice (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(2); or 30 days after a court grants a late-claim petition (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (e)). But Shah v. Dept. of Human Resources, 92 Cal.App.5th 590 (2023) and Carrillo v. County of Santa Clara, 89 Cal.App.5th 227 (2023) hold that the statutes of limitations that apply to a suit against a private defendant also apply to suits against public defendants if they impose a shorter and more specific statute of limitations than would otherwise apply under the Act. Thus, Carillo holds that even if a medical negligence suit against a public defendant would be timely under Government Code section 945.6’s statutes of limitations, it is barred if untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5’s one-year-from-accrual statute of limitations. And Shah holds that Government Code section 19815.8, which requires a suit against the California Department of Human Resources to be brought within a year of when the cause of action first arose, restricts the time to sue the Department even if the act’s statutes of limitations would provide more time to file suit.

Responses to claims

Government Code section 945.6(a)(1) holds that when a public entity sends a notice with the wording prescribed by Government Code section 913, the claimant has six months from the notice’s mailing to file suit. Andrews v. Metropolitan Transit System,74 Cal.App.5th 597(2022) holds that a response to a claim does not trigger the six-month statute of limitations unless it includes the language section 913 requires – including advising the claimant to seek an attorney. This requirement applies even if the claimant presents the claim through an attorney!

Claim variance

Case law interpretation of the claim-presentation statutes requires that any theory of liability asserted against the public entity for which a claim is required must be reflected in the allegations of the pre-litigation claim for damages. In Hernandez v. City of Stockton, 90 Cal.App.5th 1222 (2023), for instance, a claim alleged that the claimant tripped and fell on an “uplifted sidewalk.” The court concluded that this allegation did not permit the claimant to sue the city for leaving an empty tree well in the sidewalk that allegedly caused the claimant to trip.

Trigger claims

Because many claimants will not be familiar with the claim-presentation procedures, public entity defendants must be wary of so-called “trigger claims” or “claims as presented” – documents that do not set forth the information statutorily required for a claim, but that suffice to put the entity on notice that the claimant is attempting to present a claim for damages, triggering the duty to respond with a timely notice of untimely claim (Gov. Code, § 911.3) or a notice of insufficiency (Gov. Code, § 910.8) to preserve those defenses. A.S., supra, 94 Cal.App.5th 1091 holds that a complaint form alleging an incident occurred, requesting investigation into the incident, but not seeking damages or threatening litigation could not serve as a trigger claim.

Conclusion

The rules for presenting claims to and filing suits against public defendants are constantly evolving. Counsel defending or suing those defendants should keep abreast of the latest developments.