Westcon Const. v. County of Sacramento

• Citation: 152 Cal.App.4th 183,61 Cal.Rptr.3d 89
• Decision Date: 06 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. C050668.,C050668.
• Parties: WESTCON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

61 Cal.Rptr.3d 89

152 Cal.App.4th 183

WESTCON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant and Respondent.

No. C050668.

Court of Appeal, Third District.

June 6, 2007.

Cassinat Law Corporation, John E. Cassinat, Elk Grove, and Brian S. Barrad, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Robert A. Ryan, Jr., County Counsel, and Ray C. Thompson, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

HULL, J.

Plaintiff, Westcon Construction Corporation (Westcon), appeals from a judgment of dismissal following a grant of summary judgment to defendant, County of Sacramento (the County). The trial court concluded Westcon's claim for breach of contract stemming from a construction project was barred by Westcon's failure to provide the County with notice of its claim within one year of accrual, as required by the Government Claims Act (Gov.Code, § 900 et seq.). Westcon contends the period for submitting a Government Claims Act claim was tolled while the parties attempted to resolve a related claim submitted by Westcon under the Public Contract Code. Westcon further contends it substantially complied with the claim-filing requirement of the Government Claims Act. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On review of an order granting summary judgment, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46.)

On August 15, 2000, the County awarded a contract to Westcon to construct a security fence at the Sacramento County Boys Ranch (the project). During construction various changes were made to the project and delays were encountered. Westcon requested extensions on the completion date and additional compensation.

On May 15, 2001, Westcon requested final inspection of the project. On June 14, 2001, Westcon gave the County notice of final completion and informed the County it had performed over $300,000 in extra work.

On September 6, 2001, the County recorded a notice of completion of the project.

On October 2, 2001, Westcon again informed the County there were approximately $300,000 worth of change order requests outstanding. Westcon indicated it would be filing a claim for finance charges and requested a time and place to meet to discuss these matters. The County responded that most of the delays had been caused by contractor-related issues and offered to review any claims demonstrated to have been caused solely by the County.

On November 12, 2001, Westcon sent the County a "Change Order Request Log" for the project and reiterated that approximately $300,000 plus finance charges was due. The County responded, acknowledging that several items claimed were undisputed while others had previously been rejected. The County indicated it would review the merits of certain claims upon submission of adequate documentation.

The parties met on December 13, 2001. At the conclusion of this meeting, the County insisted that Westcon provide a firm claim amount and documentation in support.

On March 21, 2002, the County informed Westcon that all work on the project was complete and a one-year guarantee period had begun. The County stated a $5,000 retention amount would be released. On March 26, the County disbursed a final payment of $5,000 to Westcon.

On April 18, 2002, Westcon sent a packet of information supporting its claim for additional compensation to Scott Maddux, the County's engineer in charge of the project.

On July 16, 2002, the County issued a final acceptance of the project.

The County never acknowledged receipt of the claim packet sent by Westcon in April 2002. In April or May of 2003, Westcon learned the County was claiming it never received the packet.

Westcon re-sent the claim packet on June 9, 2003, asserting an amount due of $353,926.04.

On July 1, 2003, the County rejected Westcon's claim as untimely. The County directed Westcon to file a formal claim with the Board.

On December 30, 2003, Westcon submitted to the Board a Government Claims Act claim in the amount of $353,926.04. On January 21, 2004, the County rejected the claim, indicating it was both untimely and without merit. The County informed Westcon it had six months to file suit.

Westcon filed the present matter on March 17, 2004. The County moved for summary judgment, asserting Westcon's Government Claims Act claim was untimely. Westcon opposed the motion, arguing the period for filing a claim had been tolled during negotiations to resolve its claim under the Public Contract Code, which claim was submitted oh June 9, 2003. Westcon further argued that, even if the Government Claims Act claim was untimely, the packet of information resubmitted on June 9, 2003, was timely and substantially complied' with the Government Claims Act. In addition, Westcon argued any defect in the June 9 packet was waived by the County in its July 1 response.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The court concluded Westcon was asserting the contract had been breached during Westcon's performance, and such performance ended either on June 2, 2001, when the County took possession of the improvements, March 20, 2002, when the County tendered final payment on the contract, or July 16, 2002, when the project was formally accepted by the County. Using the latter of these dates, the claim filed on December 30, 2003, more than a year later, was untimely. The court further concluded the packet of information submitted on June 9, 2003, was not a claim under the Government Claims Act, because it was not sent to the Board. Also, because the June 9 packet was not an attempt to comply with the Government Claims Act, the rejection of that claim did not have to comply with that act and, hence, there was no waiver of defects. Finally, the court concluded the June 9 packet was not a claim under the Public Contract Code, because it was not submitted on or before final payment, which occurred in March 2002.

Judgment was thereafter entered for the County.

DISCUSSION

I Introduction

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if the moving papers establish there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Summary judgment "provide[s] courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute: (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 844, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.) Under "[t]he historic paradigm for our de novo review of a motion for summary judgment ... [w]e first identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond. We then determine if the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to judgment in its behalf. Only if the moving party has satisfied this burden do we consider whether the opposing party has produced evidence demonstrating there is a triable issue of fact with respect to any aspect of the moving party's prima facie case." (Rio Linda Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 732, 734-735, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 710.)

The present matter involves a claim for breach of contract against a local public entity.

Before a complaint may be filed against a public entity, the entity must be presented with a claim in the form required by the Government Claims Act. (Gov.Code, § 945.4.) "The public entity has 45 days to grant or deny the claim; if the claim is not acted upon within 45 days, it is deemed rejected. ([Gov.Code,] § 912.4.) If written notice of rejection is sent, suit must be brought within six months. ([Gov.Code,] § 945.6, subd. (a)(1).) If no written notice is given, the claimant is allowed two years from the accrual date to file the suit. ([Gov.Code,] § 945.6, subd. (a)(2).)" (Chalmers v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 461, 464, 221 Cal.Rptr. 19.)

A claim for breach of contract must be presented to the public entity within one year of accrual of the cause of action. (Gov.Code, § 911.2.)

In its motion for summary judgment, the County contended Westcon failed to submit a claim under the Government Claims Act within one year of accrual of its cause of action. The trial court agreed and granted the motion;

On appeal, Westcon contends the County was not entitled to summary judgment, because it failed to establish the date on which Westcon's claim accrued. Westcon further contends evidence was presented in opposition to the County's motion establishing that Westcon filed a Public Contract Code claim and such claim tolled the statutory period for filing a claim under the Government Claims Act. Finally, Westcon contends the claim packet submitted to the County on June 9, 2003, substantially complied with the Government Claims Act. As we shall explain, none of these contentions has merit.

II Date of Accrual

Westcon contends the County was not entitled to summary judgment, because it failed to establish the date upon which Westcon's claim for breach of contract accrued. Westcon argues the County instead presented evidence of three possible dates of accrual. According to Westcon, the County's "failure to establish a date as a matter of undisputed fact" is a "fatal defect" in its motion for summary judgment. We disagree.

In order to obtain summary judgment, the County was not required to establish as an undisputed fact the date of accrual of Westcon's cause of action. All the County was required to prove was that Westcon's Government Claims Act claim was submitted more than one year after accrual.

The County presented evidence that Westcon's Government Claims Act claim was submitted on December 30, 2003. Therefore, the County was only required to establish that Westcon's claim accrued before December 30, 2002. The County asserted the claim accrued...