Shah v. Dept. of Human Resources

Filed 5/23/23; Certified for Publication 6/15/23 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

RATILAL SHAH,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C094482

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34-2019- 00268813-CU-FR-GDS) DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Ratilal Shah sued the California Department of Transportation and the State Merit Award Board (Board), alleging the Board wrongfully denied him cash awards for suggestions that saved the state money. The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR), acting on behalf of the Board,1 filed a demurrer, claiming the action is barred

1 The Board functions under the umbrella of CalHR. (Gov. Code, § 19823, subd. (d).) Although CalHR maintains that the Board cannot be named as a defendant, we need not resolve that issue because CalHR is defending the action on behalf of the Board and Shah makes no argument that any distinction between the Board and CalHR is material to the outcome of the appeal.

1

by the limitations period in Government Code section 19815.8.2 The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint as to the Board. Shah now contends the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations and that, applying the proper statute of limitations, the action is not time-barred. Finding no error, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly sustained CalHR’s demurrer based on the statute of limitations. We provide facts as reflected in Shah’s complaint.3 The State’s Employee Suggestion Program provided state employees cash awards for suggestions that saved the state money. The program awarded to an employee 20 percent of the cost savings, up to a maximum of $50,000 per suggestion. Shah, an employee of the Department of Transportation, made three cost-saving suggestions through the Employee Suggestion Program. The suggestions saved the state millions of dollars and the state recommended three awards of $50,000 for each suggestion. However, the awards were later reevaluated and denied. Shah appealed to the Board.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.

3 CalHR’s request for judicial notice of a minute order (exhibit A) filed in the trial court after the notice of appeal was filed in this case is denied because the order is not relevant to a material issue on appeal. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.) CalHR’s request for judicial notice of the legislative history (enactment and amendment dates) of statutes relevant to this appeal (exhibits B & C) is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)