Wilson v. People By and Through Dept. of Public Works
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | FLEMING; HERNDON, Acting P.J., and WRIGHT |
| Citation | 271 Cal.App.2d 665,76 Cal.Rptr. 906 |
| Parties | Edith WILSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of California, Acting By and Through the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 33043. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1969 |
Page 906
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Acting By and Through the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Defendant and Respondent.
Page 907
[271 Cal.App.2d 666] Herbert Manasse, Hollywood, for appellant.
[271 Cal.App.2d 667] Harry S. Fenton, Sacramento, R. B. Pegram, Richard L. Franck, Wendell Mortimer, Jr., Los Angeles, for respondent.
FLEMING, Associate Justice.
On 10 January 1967 plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against Southern California Rapid Transit District, the County of Los Angeles, and Does I through VI, alleging personal injuries incurred on 5 August 1966 in stepping from a bus to the sidewalk and pleading prior presentation to the Transit District and the County of a written claim for damages in accordance with Government Code, section 945.4. Subsequently plaintiff applied to the State Board of Control for leave to present a late claim for damages against the State of California on the theory the State had some responsibility for the condition of the sidewalk. On the denial of her application by the State Board she petitioned the superior court for relief under section 946.6 of the Government Code, and on 30 June 1967 she obtained an order relieving her of the requirement for the presentation of a written claim as a prerequisite to suit against the State.
Subsection (f) of the section under which plaintiff obtained relief provides:
'If the court makes an order relieving the petitioner from the provisions of Section 945.4, Suit on the cause of action to which the claim relates Must be filed in such court Within 30 days thereafter.' (Italics added.)
Plaintiff took no action within 30 days of the order of 30 June, but on 16 August 1967 she served a copy of her complaint on the State Board as Doe I. The State of California demurred on the ground of lack of compliance with the 30-day period for filing suit, and its demurrer was sustained by the trial court without leave to amend. Plaintiff has appealed the subsequent order dismissing the State of California as a defendant.
Plaintiff could have complied with section 946.6(f) by filing a separate action against the State of California during the 30-day period, or by amending her complaint to name the State as a party during the 30-day period, or by serving the State with a copy of the complaint during the 30-day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raja v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., No. CIV 17–0834 JB\CG
...(citing Reynolds v. United States, 748 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir.1984) ). Cf. Wilson v. People By & Through Dep't of Pub. Works, 271 Cal. App. 2d 665, 669, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) ("A subsequent pleading which sets out the subsequent performance of a statutory condition precedent......
-
Ard v. County of Contra Costa, No. A092381.
...the primary authority relied on by the trial court in sustaining the demurrer, Wilson v. People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 665, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906 (Wilson), has been disapproved in subsequent In Wilson, the plaintiff filed a complaint against two defendants and later ......
-
Bell v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., TRI-CITY
...before judicial relief from the claim presentation requirement had been granted. (See Wilson v. People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 665, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906.) He therefore drafted a complaint so that Tri-City could be substituted as a Doe defendant at such time as the superior......
-
Esparza v. Safeway, Inc., B287927
...the performance of a condition precedent to a date prior to its actual occurrence." ( Wilson v. People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 665, 669, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906.)3. Analysis The trial court properly concluded Vezaldenos's PAGA claim was untimely. Vezaldenos narrowed her PAGA ......
-
Raja v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., No. CIV 17–0834 JB\CG
...(citing Reynolds v. United States, 748 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir.1984) ). Cf. Wilson v. People By & Through Dep't of Pub. Works, 271 Cal. App. 2d 665, 669, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) ("A subsequent pleading which sets out the subsequent performance of a statutory condition ......
-
Ard v. County of Contra Costa, No. A092381.
...the primary authority relied on by the trial court in sustaining the demurrer, Wilson v. People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 665, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906 (Wilson), has been disapproved in subsequent In Wilson, the plaintiff filed a complaint against two defendants and later ......
-
Bell v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., TRI-CITY
...before judicial relief from the claim presentation requirement had been granted. (See Wilson v. People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 665, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906.) He therefore drafted a complaint so that Tri-City could be substituted as a Doe defendant at such time as the superior......
-
Esparza v. Safeway, Inc., B287927
...performance of a condition precedent to a date prior to its actual occurrence." ( Wilson v. People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 665, 669, 76 Cal.Rptr. 906.)3. Analysis The trial court properly concluded Vezaldenos's PAGA claim was untimely. Vezaldenos narrowed her PAGA......