Staab v. Cnty. of Kern
| Decision Date | 17 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | F083508 |
| Parties | VINDA STAAB et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF KERN, Defendant and Respondent |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. No BCV-20-101981 David R. Lampe, Judge.
Law Offices of Ralph B. Wegis, Ralph B. Wegis and Edward Gordon for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Ericksen Arbuthnot and Michael Lehman; Andrew Hamilton County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
John Dominic Staab (Staab) was tragically killed when he was hit by a truck while bicycling on a public highway. His surviving wife and daughter, Vinda Staab and Shelby Staab (collectively, plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit against the County of Kern (County) and two other public entities seeking damages for his wrongful death based on the highway's allegedly dangerous condition. Before the suit was filed, the "Estate of John Dominic Staab" (the Estate) presented a claim for wrongful death to the County pursuant to the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) (the Act),[1] which the County rejected. The trial court granted the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground plaintiffs had not presented a claim to the County in their own names before filing the lawsuit.
On appeal from the resulting judgment in the County's favor, plaintiffs argue they may rely on the Estate's claim to satisfy their obligation to present a claim to the County and, in any event, the claim substantially complied with the Act and the County should be estopped from arguing their failure to comply with the claim presentation requirements. Based on established law, we find no merit to plaintiffs' arguments, and we must affirm.
On February 27, 2020, the Estate presented a claim to the County through its attorney, Ralph B. Wegis. The claim stated: "This is a claim being presented by the Estate of John Dominic Staab for his wrongful death arising out of a bicycle crash on Alfred Harrell Highway in an unincorporated area of Kern County on August 31, 2019." The claim further stated "[a]ny communication to the Estate of John Dominic Staab or their attorneys, can be achieved by contacting" the Law Offices of Ralph B. Wegis.
The claim contained a detailed statement of the accident alleged to have caused Staab's death and the purported dangerous condition of the intersection where the accident occurred. The claim did not describe the claimed damages or list their amount, but stated that "[g]iven Staab's death, any action in the Kern County Superior Court would be an unlimited civil case." Wegis signed the claim, stating he is "the person presenting this claim on behalf of Claimant, Estate of John Dominic Staab." The claim does not name any party other than the Estate, does not mention Vinda Staab or Shelby Staab, either by name or description, and does not state whether Staab was married or had children.
The County rejected the claim on its merits on March 13, 2020. The County's notice, which was addressed to Wegis, stated the claimant was "Estate of John Dominic Staab." The County asserted it was not the entity against whom the claim should be addressed as it "does not own, operate, control, supervise or maintain or have jurisdiction over the intersection," and it was informed and believed the City of Bakersfield was the correct entity. The County advised "[y]ou should investigate the identity of the proper entity or other potential defendants promptly, to protect your rights."
On August 25, 2020, plaintiffs filed a complaint naming the State of California, the City of Bakersfield, and the County as defendants, asserting causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and dangerous condition of public property. The complaint identifies Vinda Staab as Staab's wife and Shelby Staab as his daughter. The complaint alleges compliance with the Act, stating with respect to the County that "plaintiffs, as the Estate of John Dominic Staab," filed a claim against the County "arising out of the County's failure to properly maintain the roadways and bicycle paths in the area where the wrongful death of decedent John Dominic Staab occurred," and the County "rejected plaintiffs' Claim" on March 13, 2020.
The County answered the complaint, but then later filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the following pertinent grounds: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' claims because they failed to comply with the Act's claims presentation requirement and the time to do so had passed; and (2) plaintiffs failed to state a claim as to any cause of action because they did not adequately allege compliance with the claims presentation requirement.
The County argued plaintiffs could not rely on the claim the Estate presented to satisfy the claims presentation requirement but rather were required to submit their own claims, and their failure to do so barred their suit against the County. The County further argued plaintiffs' allegations they complied with the Act were contradicted by the judicially noticeable fact they did not comply with the Act. The County asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the following: (1) plaintiffs' complaint; (2) that the County "is a 'public entity' within the meaning of the Government Claims Act"; (3) that the "Estate of John Dominic Staab" filed a claim under the Act; and (4) that plaintiffs did not file a claim under the Act.
In opposing the motion, plaintiffs asserted the reference to the Estate in the claim without listing Vinda Staab and Shelby Staab as claimants was due to a "scrivener's error of omission in typing out their names." Plaintiffs asserted they substantially complied with the Act's claims presentation requirement. Plaintiffs argued that because only Staab's survivors could bring a wrongful death cause of action and the claim states it is for wrongful death, the face of the claim should have raised questions about the claimant's identity; therefore, the County was required to provide notice of the defect to the Estate. Plaintiffs asserted the County waived the issue by failing to raise it when the claim was filed. Plaintiffs further argued because the County rejected the claim based on lack of control or jurisdiction over the accident site, it was estopped from asserting noncompliance with the claims presentation requirement since its rejection induced plaintiffs "from rectifying any error in the caption of the claim."
In reply, the County argued: it did not have a duty to identify and seek out other possible claimants who had potential claims against it; it was not obligated to give the claimant notice to correct any deficiency; the claim did not provide it with all required information as to plaintiffs; plaintiffs failed to address the elements of estoppel or identify any facts the County concealed from them; and the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply because plaintiffs did not file claims.
Following oral argument on the motion, the trial court took the matter under submission. The trial court subsequently issued a written ruling granting the motion without leave to amend. The trial court noted the only claim filed in conjunction with Staab's death was filed by his Estate and explained that while plaintiffs argued the claim should be read to include them because it included the phrase "wrongful death," the argument went against well-settled authority holding each claimant must file his or her own claim and one claimant may not rely on a claim presented by another.
The trial court rejected plaintiffs' substantial compliance argument, finding they misapplied the doctrine as it only applies when the statutory requirements have been met but there is a defect in form. The trial court found plaintiffs' alternative contention that the County is estopped from asserting failure to comply with the claim filing requirements was meritless. The trial court determined plaintiffs failed to properly address the elements of estoppel and, in any event, they did not offer any reasonable basis to show the County knew of plaintiffs' existence and should have investigated the identities of potential claimants, as nothing in the claim could be perceived as notifying the County of plaintiffs or their connection to the claim since the claim does not reference them or assert their existence. The trial court granted the County's request for judicial notice of its status as a public entity, that the Estate filed a claim pursuant to the Act, and that plaintiffs did not file a claim, and granted judicial notice of the complaint.
Judgment was entered in favor of the County on October 8, 2021.
"' '" (Tarin v. Lind (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 395, 403-404.) "[W]e independently determine whether, on the state of the pleadings and any matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears the [County] was entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Ventura Coastal, LLC v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1, 14.) "We may rely on any applicable legal theory in affirming or reversing because we' "review the trial court's disposition of the matter, not its reasons for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial