This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Public Entity, Government Claims Act
Public Nuisance

Tien Wong, et al. v. West Valley Mission Community College District, et al.

Published: Feb. 7, 2020 | Result Date: Dec. 19, 2019 | Filing Date: Feb. 28, 2019 |

Case number: 19CV343956 Demurrer –  Dismissal

Judge

Mary E. Arand

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Clarence Ka-Yan Chan
(Law Office of Clarence Ka-Yan Chan)

Albert Wu
(Law Office of Clarence Ka-Yan Chan)


Defendant

Jennifer A. Emmaneel
(McDowall Cotter) for City of Saratoga

Kelley N. Moran
(McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP) for West Valley Mission Community College District

Mary E. Varni
(McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP) for West Valley Mission Community College District


Facts

On January 3, 2017, Xialan Luo was struck and killed by a vehicle as she walked across an intersection on West Valley Mission Community College's campus. Luo's husband and mother, Tien Yu Wong, and Linhan He filed suit against defendants the City of Saratoga and West Valley Mission Community College District as a result, asserting causes of action for personal injuries and wrongful death.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended the City and the District were liable for dangerous condition of public property, premises liability, and public nuisance.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of action because they failed to present a timely government claim under California Government Code Section 911.2. Plaintiffs were also precluded from commencing this action against the City and the District because the court had already denied Plaintiffs' Petition for Relief from claim presentation requirements of Government Code Section 945.4 in a prior action, concluding that Plaintiffs waited more than a year after their cause of action accrued to apply to the City and the District to present a late claim and rejecting Plaintiffs' argument that their cause of action belatedly accrued in May 2018 upon the release of the collision report.

Result

The court determined that Plaintiffs' commencement of this separate action was improper in light of their election to pursue a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement, which petition was denied. Moreover, Plaintiffs' new theory of accrual was irreconcilable with the facts in their own pleading and the position they historically took. Therefore, the court sustained defendants' demurrer on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action without leave to amend, and dismissed the case.


#134052

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390