Plaintiff's Ignorance of Requirements of Government Claims Act Does Not Excuse Noncompliance after Counsel is Retained

The Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment. The court held that the trial court properly dismissed a complaint for damages against a school district based on the failure of both plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel to comply with the Government Claims Act.

 
On March 5, 2019, an elementary school teacher grabbed minor A.S.'s arm and twisted it, resulting in an injury requiring medical treatment. A.S.'s mother obtained a complaint form from the school, filled it out, and returned it on March 7. On the form, she described the incident, her son's injuries, and his treatment at the emergency room. She further requested that the school conduct a thorough, unbiased, and professional investigation of the incident and discipline the teacher appropriately.

The family later retained counsel and, on February 25, 2020, A.S. filed a complaint against the school district, seeking monetary damages. In the complaint, A.S. alleged that he had complied with the requirements of the Government Claims Act, as set forth in Gov. Code §910. The complaint form previously filled out by A.S.'s mother was attached to the complaint.

The trial court sustained the district's demurrer without leave to amend, finding that A.S. had failed to comply with §910.

The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the complaint form filled out by A.S.'s mother failed to notify the district that A.S. intended to seek monetary damages, as required under §910 prior to the filing of a complaint for such damages. Further the district did not waive compliance with §910 by accepting the complaint form submitted in March 2019. There is a difference between a claim that is in adequate and a document that is not a claim at all. The form filled out by A.S.'s mother, because it provided no notice of A.S.'s intent to seek monetary damages, fell into the latter category. Because the claim was nonexistent, rather than merely deficient, the school district did not waive compliance with §910 by failing to advise A.S.'s mother of any deficiencies. Finally, the school superintendent's acceptance of the form submitted in March 2019 did not equitably estop the district from later challenging the sufficiency of that form. Even if it were to be assumed that all of the elements of equitable estoppel were present when that form was accepted, A.S.'s subsequent retention of legal counsel constituted a change of circumstances that rendered estoppel no longer appropriate. Even if A.S.'s mother was unaware of the statutory requirements for suing a government entity, counsel should have been aware of those requirements. And, having attached the original complaint form to the complaint ultimately filed against the school district, counsel also should have been aware that mother's complaint form failed to satisfy those requirements. Given that the alleged incident occurred on March 5, 2019, and counsel became involved in the case no later than February 25, 2020, when A.S. complaint was filed, counsel still had approximately one week to file a compliant claim form, but nonetheless failed to do so. Although mother could claim ignorance of the law and reliance on the school's acceptance of her complaint form, those essential elements of equitable estoppel disappeared when counsel took over the case.

A.S. v. Palmdale School District