Patricia Long as Trustee for the Finished Barn Family Trust vs. Global Discoveries Ltd., LLC

entity.” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 730, 738 [citation and internal quotations omitted].)

Compliance with the claims presentation requirement is an element of a plaintiff’s claim. (State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243-44 [“Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is ... a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant ... and thus an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.”] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted].)

The Government Claims Act requires plaintiffs to file a written claim with the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action, as a prerequisite to filing a civil claim. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.) The date of accrual is the date of the occurrence of the last fact essential to the cause of action. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 815, as modified July 18, 2001.)

“The date of accrual of a cause of action marks the starting point for calculating the claims presentation period. [Citation.] The general rule for defining the accrual of a cause of action sets the date as the time when, under the substantive law, the wrongful act is done, or the wrongful result occurs, and the consequent liability arises. [Citation.] In other words, it sets the date as the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements [citations]—the elements being generically referred to by sets of terms such as wrongdoing or wrongful conduct, cause or causation, and harm or injury [citations]. [Citation.]

A cause of action accrues for purposes of the filing requirements of the Tort Claims Act on the same date a similar action against a nonpublic entity would be deemed to accrue for purposes of applying the relevant statute of limitations.” (K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School District (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1239, as modified (May 5, 2009) disapproved of on other grounds by Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903.)

The FAC alleges that after receiving the investigation report the School District submitted to California Department of Education, Education Equity Uniform Complaint Procedures Office (“CDE”) in August 2020, Plaintiff Xia felt the need to report the misconduct of the School District’s educators. (FAC ¶ 52.) In September 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Commission against Mr. McAlindin, Ms. Balde, Mrs. Yaung, Mr. Louie, and Mr. King. (Ibid.) The Commission received Plaintiff Xia’s complaint forms and affidavit on October 5, 2020. (Ibid.)

Ms. Giannini, a Commission investigator, investigated Plaintiff Xia’s complaint from November 13 to November 20, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 53.) Plaintiff Xia expressed concerns over Ms. Giannini’s interpretation of the evidence. (Id. at ¶¶ 53, 101.) Ms. Giannini concluded her investigation on November 20, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 53.) On December 23, 2020, the Commission notified Plaintiff Xia that no adverse action was warranted against the individuals named in the complaint. (Ibid.)

In March 2021, Plaintiff Xia filed a citizen complaint against the CTC investigator for her failure to conduct a thorough investigation. (FAC ¶ 54.) Plaintiff Xia received a letter dated April 1, 2021 which did not explain the basis for the Commission’s decision, but stated that Plaintiff could resubmit her complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff Xia submitted a second complaint to the Commission against Mr. King, Ms. Yaung, Mr. Louis, Ms.. Blade, and Mr. McAlindin in February 2023. (FAC ¶ 60.) On August 23, 2023, the Commission refused to take adverse action against the individuals against whom Plaintiff Xia complained. (Ibid.) The FAC alleges that Plaintiff believed the CDE’s decision played a key