McLaughlin v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 30 November 1972
• Citation: McLaughlin v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.Rptr. 384, 29 Cal.App.3d 35 (Cal. App. 1972)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Tim McLAUGHLIN et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, Respondent; Lawrence L. LIGHTHILL, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 32013.

Page 384

105 Cal.Rptr. 384

29 Cal.App.3d 35

Tim McLAUGHLIN et al., Petitioners, v.The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, RespondentLawrence L. LIGHTHILL, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 32013.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Nov. 30, 1972.

Hearing Denied Jan. 31, 1973.

Gary L. Hall, Fitzwilliam, Memering, Stumbos & DeMers, Sacramento, for petitioners.

Frederick L. Hilger, Eureka, for real party in interest.

ROUSE, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff, Lawrence L. Lighthill, commenced a personal injury action against Tim McLaughlin, Milton Allen, and the State of California, acting by and through the Division of Highways, in the Humboldt County Superior Court.Defendants' motion for summary judgment in that action was denied and defendants have now petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel respondentsuperior court to vacate such order.If the motion should have been granted, mandamus shought in this proceeding is an appropriate remedy.(Whitney's At The Beach v. Superior Court(1970)3 Cal.App.3d 258, 83 Cal.Rptr. 237;Bank of America v. Superior Court(1970)4 Cal.App.3d 435, 84 Cal.Rptr. 421.)

In their motion for summary judgment, defendants, who are the petitioners in this action, contended that plaintiff's cause of action for damages for personal injuries was barred by his failure to comply with applicable statutes governing the presentation of claims against a public entity.Specifically defendants argue that plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of Government Code, section 946.6, which require a claimant to petition the court for an order relieving him from the provisions of section 945.4, when his application for leave to present a claim has been denied.¹

Defendants established that the cause of action in the instant case accrued on July 24, 1970; that plaintiff failed to present a claim to the public entity within 100 days; ² that plaintiff made application for leave to present such claim on June 30, 1971; ³ that the State Board of Control'declined to grant (his) request' on August 4, 1971; and that thereafter plaintiff filed suit on the cause of action to which the claim related without first obtaining a court order relieving him from the provisions of section 945.4, as required by section 946.6.⁴

Compliance with section 946.6 is mandatory unless excused on the basis of equitable estoppel.(Kendrick v. City of La Mirada(1969)272 Cal.App.2d 325, 328, 77 Cal.Rptr. 444.)

Plaintiff admits that he did not petition for such relief in the superior court before he filed his action; however, he asserts that the letter he received from the State Board of Control misled him into believing that the board had rejected his Claim rather than his Application for leave to file a late claim, ⁵ and that his action is not barred since he filed his action within a six months' period, as required by section 945.6, subdivision (a), subsection (1).⁶

The letter which plaintiff received from the State Board of Control read as follows: 'Re: Application for leave to present late claim on behalf of LAWRENCE LIGHTHILL. . . .

'The above entitled Application was referred to the Board of Control at its meeting of August 3, 1971.After reviewing said Application, the board Declined to grant your request.'(Emphasis partially added.)

Although this paragraph, standing alone, would seem to constitute a denial of the application for leave to present a late claim, the bottom of the letter contains the following 'WARNING': 'Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on the Rejected claim, or the Portion of the claim rejected.SeeGovernment Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.'(Emphasis added.)

The warning appearing on the written notice mailed to the petitioner specifically refers to a 'rejected claim' or 'portion of the claim rejected.'It is a warning notice which is required to be given under section 913, when 'the Claim is rejected in whole or in part.'⁷(Emphasis added.)No such warning notice is required to be given under section 911.8, When an application for leave to present a claim is denied.⁸

Section 915.4 lists three types of statutory notices as the 'notices provided for in Sections 910.8,911.8, and913. . . .'⁹Section 910.8 provides for written notice of a claim's insufficiency;section 911.8 provides for written notice of the board's action upon an application for leave to present a claim; and section 913 provides for written notice of the action taken on a claim.

In the instant case, action by the Board of Control concerned plaintiff's Application for leave to file a late claim and not the claim itself.We conclude, therefore, that it was both confusing and misleading to include in the board's letter to petitioner a warning which only pertains to action taken upon a claim.¹⁰

In Viles v. State of California(1967)66 Cal.2d 24, 31, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666, 671, 423 P.2d 818, 823, our Supreme Court referred to the intricacies of the claims statutes: "The 1963legislation is remedial and should be liberally construed.Both the courts and Legislature have recognized that the labyrinth of claims statutes previously scattered throughout our statutes were traps for the unwary.(Citations.)An attempt has been made by the Legislature to remove such snares.Courts should not rebuild them by a too narrow interpretation of the new enactments."

It was in an attempt to remove such snares that the Legislature revised section 913.¹¹

Unlike the plaintiff in Kendrick v. City of La Mirada, supra, 272 Cal.App.2d 325, 7 Cal.Rptr. 444, plaintiff here has presented facts which, in our opinion, justify his failure to petition for judicial relief pursuant to section 946.6.He has demonstrated to the satisfaction of this court that the written notice he received from the board misled him into believing that the board had rejected his Claim rather than his Application for leave to present a claim.Such notice erroneously included a warning required to be given under section 913 when a Claim is rejected.Plaintiff contends that he acted in reliance upon that notice, to his injury.

Estoppel may be allowed in factual situations where claimants have been misled by governmental agents with respect to the procedural and time requirements of the claims statute.(Cruise v. City & County of San Francisco(1951)101 Cal.App.2d 558, 564--565, 225 P.2d 988;Mendibles v. City of San Diego(1950)100 Cal.App.2d 502, 506, 224 P.2d 42;Fredrichsen v. City of Lakewood(1971)6 Cal.3d 353, 357, 99 Cal.Rptr. 13, 491 P.2d 805.)

In light of the established judicial policy that actions should be decided on their merits and our Supreme Court's command that claims statutes should be liberally construed (Viles v. State of California, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 32--33, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666, 423 P.2d 818), we hold that defendants are estopped from asserting plaintiff's noncompliance with the statutes relating to the presentation of claims.

The alternative writ is discharged and the petition is denied.

TAYLOR, P.J., and KANE, J., concur.

1All references herein to code sections are to the Government Code.

2Section 911.2: 'A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2(commencing with Section 915) of this chapter not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action.A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2(commencing with Section 915) of this chapter not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.'

3Section 911.4: '(a) When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within such time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such claim.(b) The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2(commencing with Section 915) of this chapter within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.The proposed claim shall be attached to the application. . . .'

4Section 946.6: '(a) Where an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from the provisions of Section 945.4.The proper court for filing the petition is a court which would be a competent court for the trial of an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates and which is located in a county or judicial district which would be a proper place for the trial of such action, and if the petition is filed in a court which is not a proper court for the determination of the matter, the court, on motion of any party, shall transfer the proceeding to a proper court.(b) The petition must show (1) the application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied, (2) the reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2 and (3) the information required by Section 910.The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.(c)The court shall relieve the petitioner from the provisions of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a...