Ridley v. City and County of San Francisco

DAVID, J. pro tem.

*

Plaintiff minors through their guardians ad litem filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco, claiming assault, battery, false arrest and imprisonment by police officers on or about May 30, 1965. The complaint, alleging 20 causes of action, was filed on May 27, 1966. All causes of action alleged in substance that “Within

[292]

the statutory time following the occurrences herein alleged, plaintiff [name] filed with the City and County of San Francisco a claim pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the California Government Code. ’ ’

The appropriate provisions of the Government Code are sections 910, 911.2, 911.4 and 945.4. Section 945.4 provides no such suit for money or damages may he brought until the required written claim has been presented to the public entity and rejected; or by lapse of time is deemed rejected.

Upon motion for summary judgment, it developed that appellants’ allegations were not true; that no claims at all were filed within the time specified, which section 911.2 sets forth as “not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. ’ ’

The 100 days expired September 8,1965. The claims for eight plaintiffs were filed on December 27, 1965; two others were filed May 11, 1966. The 100-day requirement applies to actions for false arrest and imprisonment; and a claim filed late is to be disregarded, unless the statutory methods of relief are employed.

(Collins

v.

County of Los Angeles,

241 Cal.App.2d 451, 460 [50 Cal.Rptr. 586].)

, When a claim is not filed within that period, application may be made to the public entity for leave to present the claim “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year.” (Gov. Code, §911.4.) If such an application is made by a minor, in the absence, at least, of special circumstances, it must be granted.(Gov. Code,§ 911.6;

Tammen

v.