 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hartnell College v. Superior Court of Monterey County11/15/2002
endant] reinstate plaintiff as superintendent of the district or face possible legal action. . . . Nowhere in the letter is there a claim for money damages . . . ." (Ibid.) Another court the rejected the plaintiff's contention that a series of letters about a contractor's monetary dispute with a public agency could constitute a claim, since the letters did not warn of impending litigation. (Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524, 534.)
Thus, these decisions establish that a prelitigation letter to a public entity cannot constitute a claim as presented unless the letter notifies the public entity that (1) a claim for monetary damages exists; and (2) litigation will ensue if the claim is not satisfied. (Green v. State Center Community College Dist., supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358.) A letter claiming monetary damages satisfies the purpose of the claims act by facilitating investigation of disputes and settlement before trial where appropriate. (Philips v. Desert Hospital Dist., supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 709.)
Review of the February 29, 2000, from Antonio's attorney to Hartnell College letter shows it is insufficient to constitute a claim as presented because it does not disclose a discernible claim for money damages. In the letter, Antonio only demands reinstatement to the nursing program and a confidentiality agreement. Nor does plaintiff's subsequent letter of April 6, 2000, constitute a claim as presented. Aside from Antonio's omission of any allegations about the April 6, 2000 letter in his third amended complaint, the letter is insufficient because it also fails to disclose a claim for money damages. The letter merely states, in pertinent part, "If you contend that Mr. Antonio's grievance is resolved and therefore Mr. Antonio has exhausted his administrative remedies and may now pursue legal remedies, please so indicate."
Thus, nothing in these two letters indicated to Hartnell College that Antonio was seeking any remedy other than reinstatement to the nursing program and a confidentiality agreement. Antonio's complaint filed with the DFEH also failed to indicate that Antonio was seeking monetary damages due to a variety of conduct by Hartnell College staff that constituted disability discrimination and harassment. Accordingly, the prelitigation letters of February 29, 2000, and April 6, 2000, did not provide Hartnell College with the opportunity to investigate the merits of Antonio's claim for monetary damages and to settle it without the expense of a lawsuit.
We therefore conclude that the third amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to show compliance with the government claim filing requirements of the Tort Claims Act, and the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer. We also conclude that the demurrer should have been sustained without leave to amend, because there is no possibility that Antonio could further amend the complaint to allege compliance with the government claim filing requirement. (See, e.g., Cadle Co. II v. Harvey (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.) As we have discussed, if the letter of April 6, 2000, were to be properly alleged in a further amended complaint, it is nevertheless insufficient as a matter of law to constitute a claim as presented, and Antonio has not contended that any other document not previously included in his complaint could serve that purpose.
IV. DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to vacate its order overruling the demurrer of defendant Hartnell College to the third amended complaint, and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. The temporary stay order is vacate
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|