Ramirez v. City of San Jose

• Decision Date: 08 March 2023
• Docket Number: H048019
• Parties: SANDRA LINARES RAMIREZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

SANDRA LINARES RAMIREZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Defendant and Respondent.

H048019

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

March 8, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 16CV297131)

GREENWOOD, P. J.

Appellants Sandra Linares Ramirez^[1] and Camila Alvarez, by and through her guardian ad litem Sandra Linares Ramirez (together appellants), appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent the City of San Jose (City).^[2] After Aldo Juan Alvarez (the decedent) was killed in a light rail train collision, appellants filed a government claim with the City pursuant to the Government Claims Act (the Act). The claim named only the decedent and his passenger plaintiff Lauro Garcia,^[3] and did not identify appellants. Thereafter, appellants filed suit against the City for negligence and wrongful death. The City filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that appellants had failed to comply with the Act because they had not filed a claim on their own behalf. On appeal, appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because they substantially complied with the Act and the failure to be named in the decedent's claim was merely a clerical error. We conclude that appellants did not substantially comply with the Act by virtue of the claim presented on behalf of the decedent and affirm the judgment in favor of the City.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On June 20, 2015, the decedent was driving a vehicle with Garcia as his sole passenger. The decedent made a left turn across a set of light rail tracks in San Jose and was struck and killed by a light rail train. Garcia sustained several injuries as a result of the collision. Sandra Linares Ramirez is the decedent's surviving spouse and Camila Alvarez is his only child.

Appellants retained counsel, who presented separate claims to the City and SCVTA on behalf of Garcia and the decedent. The claim presented to the City on behalf of the decedent named the decedent as claimant, described the circumstances of the injury as "inadequate signal lights, signal warning at crossing of street by light rail train. Train collided with claimant &killed claimant," and described the loss as simply "fatality." The amount claimed was $2,500,000, for which the stated basis was, again, "fatality." The claim named Garcia as the sole "other injured person." Appellants did not file any additional or separate claims and neither Garcia's nor the decedent's claims named them as claimants, described any injury to them, or claimed any sums on their behalf.

In June 2016, appellants and Garcia filed a complaint for damages, asserting claims of negligence, wrongful death, and negligent entrustment against defendants. The complaint did not allege compliance with the Government Claims Act as required by Government Code section 810, et seq.^[4] SCVTA and the City filed their respective answers denying the allegations in the complaint.

In March 2019, SCVTA and the City both filed motions for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of plaintiffs' claims. The City argued, in relevant part, that appellants failed to file tort claims as required by the Act and were barred from maintaining the suit. Specifically, the City asserted that each heir in a wrongful death action must present a claim. While the decedent had filed a claim, that claim neither identified his heirs, Ramirez and Alvarez, nor claimed any sum on their behalf, nor was implicitly made on their behalf. The City argued that appellants were required to file their own claims prior to filing suit, had failed to do so, and were now time-barred from curing the defect and presenting individual claims. Appellants opposed the City's motion, asserting that triable issues of fact existed as to whether the Government claim submitted on behalf of the decedent was sufficient to inure to the benefit of his widow and child.

In August 2019, the trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims asserted by Ramirez and Alvarez; granted summary adjudication to SCVTA and the City on Garcia's cause of action for negligent entrustment; and treated the City's and SCVTA's motions as motions for judgment on the pleadings as to Garcia's cause of action for negligence and granted the motion with leave to amend the complaint. In granting summary judgment, the trial court found that Ramirez and Alvarez did not present claims to the City and that the claim submitted on the decedent's behalf did not provide sufficient notice of claims by any other individuals. The court held that Ramirez and Alvarez had failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Act and their claims were therefore barred as a matter of law. On January 3, 2020, judgment was entered for the City against Ramirez and Alvarez on all claims and against Garcia on his negligent entrustment claim. Appellants timely appealed from the judgment.

II. Discussion

Appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion when it granted summary judgment in favor of the City based on appellants' failure to comply with the claim presentation requirements of the Act. Appellants argue that they substantially complied with the Act's claim presentation requirements prior to filing suit, asserting that although the tort claim named decedent, rather than themselves, as claimant, it should nevertheless be understood as having been filed on behalf of appellants. They argue that the claim provided the City actual notice of the decedent's death, that extending the decedent's claim to his heirs is consistent with the policy concerns of the Act, and that it would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the City to benefit from what appellants describe as "essentially a clerical error." Finally, appellants assert that extending the decedent's claim to his heirs would not prejudice the City because the City can face only one wrongful death action regardless of the number of heirs.

The City counters that appellants failed to file their own claims under the Act and cannot rely upon the claim filed on behalf of the decedent to cure the defect. The City further argues that the deadline to present a claim has passed, such that appellants are now time-barred from presenting claims. The City asserts that appellants' causes of action are barred regardless of the single joint cause of action available for a wrongful death claim.

A. Standard of Review

A party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that "there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A defendant meets their burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) "On appeal, we review the record and the determination of the trial court de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the losing parties. [Citation.]" (Brown v. El Dorado Union High School Dist. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1003, 1022.)

B. The Government Claims Act

As a general rule, the Act requires a plaintiff to present a public entity with a timely written claim for damages before filing suit against it. The claim must include a "general description" of the alleged injury "so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim." (§§ 905, 911.2, 945.4.) Critical to the matter before us, the claim must include the name of the claimant and must be presented and signed by the claimant or a person acting on his behalf. (§§ 910, 910.2.) The failure to file such a claim is "fatal to [a] cause of action." (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 454.)

Because much of appellants' briefing focuses on the purpose of the Act and the apparent inequity created by its application in this case, we briefly summarize the purpose behind the Act and its claim presentation requirements." 'The intent of the Tort Claims Act is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs against governmental entities. Rather, the intent of the act is to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances.... The act creates a bond between the administrative claim and the judicial complaint. Each theory of recovery against the public entity must have been reflected in a timely claim....' [Citation.] The aim of the tort claim statutes is to provide sufficient information to enable the public entity to investigate claims and settle, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation, and to take the potential claim into account in fiscal planning." (Castaneda v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1060 (Castaneda).)" 'It is not the purpose of the claims statutes to prevent surprise.... It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in the face of the public entity's actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.'" (Pacific Tel. &Tel. Co. v. County of Riverside (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 183, 191.)

C. Appellants Did Not Comply with the Act's Claim Presentation Requirements

Appellants never filed tort claims on their own behalf and they were not named as claimants in the decedent's tort claim filed with the City. They argue that because their counsel filed a claim on behalf of the decedent, thereby putting the City on notice, appellants were in substantial compliance with the Act's claim presentation requirements. We are compelled to reject the argument based on long-standing statutory and case authority.

"Whe...