Hunter v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Jun 10, 1968 No. Civ. 31617Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint filed against a public entity after the six-month statutory deadline is time-barred, rejecting arguments for substantial compliance, waiver, or estoppel.

Issues

Whether a complaint filed four days after the statutory six-month period is barred by the Tort Claims Act.
Whether the doctrine of substantial compliance excuses a late-filed complaint against a public entity.
Whether a public entity waives the defense of untimeliness by failing to raise it in a demurrer or answer.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellants’ complaint, filed on 8 May, was thus four days late.”

“We are governed here by the tort claims statute, which does not indulge late suitors to the same extent it does late claimants.”

“Appellants’ right to sue the state and its political subdivisions, having been formulated by statute, is circumscribed by the limitations within that statute.”

FLEMING, J.

The issue: timeliness of commencing suit against a public entity.

The chronology:

17 June

1963—a car containing appellants collided with a car containing respondent Nybakken, an employee of respondent County.

12 September

1963—appellants filed with the County a claim for damages caused by the collision. Other than to acknowledge receipt of the claim, respondent County took no action.

8 May

1964—appellants filed their complaint in superior court.

18 August

1966—respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground the complaint had not been filed within the time permitted by section 945.6, Government Code. (Section references are to the Government Code unless otherwise-noted.)

October

1966—summary judgment was granted.

In relevant part, section 945.6 provides: <£. . . any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . must be commenced Avithin six months after the date the claim is acted upon by the board, or is deemed to have been rejected by the board. ...”

Section 912.4 provides, in part:

“(a) The board shall act on a claim . . . within 45 days after the claim has been presented. ... (c) If the board fails or refuses to act on a claim within the time prescribed by this section, the claim shall be deemed to have been rejected by the board-on the last day of the- period within which the board was required to act upon the claim.

By reason of 1963 Statutes, chapter 1715, page 3369; "section 152(d), since appellants’ claim was filed 12 September

[822]

Hunter v. County of Los Angeles

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief