A.S. v. Palmdale Sch. Dist.

94 Cal.App.5th 1091

312 Cal.Rptr.3d 810

A.S., a Minor, etc. Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

B318012

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Filed August 28, 2023

Law Offices of Martin E. Stearn and Martin E. Stearn, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Carpenter, Rothans & Dumont, Louis R. Dumont, Los Angeles, and John J. Stumreiter for Defendant and Respondent.

STRATTON, P. J.

After an elementary school teacher grabbed and twisted A.S.’s arm, his mother (and guardian ad litem) filed a complaint form with the Palmdale School District (District) on his behalf. They then filed a lawsuit for damages against the District, its superintendent, the assistant superintendent, the elementary school principal, and the teacher.¹ The trial court sustained the District's demurrer to appellant's third amended complaint without leave to amend, on the ground appellant failed to file a claim with the District in compliance with Government Code section 910.² Appellant appeals from the subsequent judgment of dismissal, contending his complaint form substantially complied with the requirements of section 910 and the District was estopped from raising defects in the form. We affirm the judgment.³

BACKGROUND

The third amended complaint alleges that on March 5, 2019, a teacher grabbed appellant's arm and twisted it, resulting in an injury requiring medical treatment. In an exhibit attached to the original complaint, appellant's mother stated she took him to the emergency room, where doctors gave him a sling and told him to stay home for the remainder of the week.

The next day, appellant's mother went to the school to file a complaint. The school receptionist told her she would have to request a form at the District offices. Appellant's mother then went to the District offices and spoke with a receptionist there. The receptionist left, then returned and told the mother that Ryan Beardsley, the assistant superintendent, had instructed her to give the mother a form entitled "COMPLAINT FORM—EMPLOYEE STUDENT ISSUE." Appellant's mother asked if there were any other forms she needed to complete and the receptionist said Beardsley had only instructed her to provide the complaint form.

As directed, appellant's mother took the complaint form home, completed it and returned the next day to meet with Beardsley. She gave the form to Beardsley. She told him she had taken appellant to the hospital for treatment of his injuries and had filed a police report. She asked Beardsley if there were any other documents or paperwork she needed to complete. Beardsley said there were none and he promised a full inquiry would be made into the incident. He said he would be in touch with her.

On February 25, 2020, A.S., now represented by counsel and acting through his mother as his guardian ad litem, filed this lawsuit seeking monetary damages. He alleged he had complied with the requirements of the Government Claims Act (Act) ( § 810 et seq. ) and attached a copy of the complaint form his mother had given to Beardsley. The District demurred twice to appellant's complaint. The demurrers were sustained, but with leave to amend. The District's third demurrer, to appellant's third amended complaint, was sustained without leave to amend. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal and this appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

"An order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is reviewed de novo. The court exercises its independent judgment to determine whether or not the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as a matter of law. [Citation.] We assume the truth of properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded, and matters that are judicially noticeable. [Citation.] We construe the pleading in a reasonable manner and read the allegations in context. [Citation.] However, courts will not close their eyes in situations where a complaint contains allegations of fact inconsistent with attached documents/exhibits, or allegations contrary to facts which are judicially noticed. [Citation.] Where facts appearing in attached exhibits or judicially noticed documents contradict, or are inconsistent with, the complaint's allegations, we must rely on the facts in the exhibits and judicially noticed documents." ( Genis v. Schainbaum (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1014–1015, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 484.)

When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can amend the complaint to cure the defect. ( Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.) If the defect can be cured, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm. ( Ibid . ) The plaintiff has the burden of proving such reasonable possibility. ( Ibid . )

B. Applicable Law

The Act requires any person seeking monetary damages from a public entity to file a claim with that entity. ( § 905.) The claim must include the information specified in section 910. A complaint is deficient and subject to a general demurrer if it fails to allege facts showing compliance with the claims requirement. (See, e.g., Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211, 218, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 264.)

"The essential elements of a claim are set forth in Government Code section 910." ( Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1082, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576 ( Loehr ).) A claimant must show "[t]he amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case." ( Gov. Code, § 910, subd. (f).)

"[A] claim under Government Code section 910 is sufficient if (1) there is ‘some compliance with all of the statutory requirements’; and (2) the claim discloses sufficient information to enable the public entity adequately to investigate the merits of the claim so as to settle the claim, if appropriate. [Citation.] The latter inquiry is known as the substantial compliance test." ( County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 353, 360, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 485.)

"The doctrine of substantial compliance cannot cure the total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff's failure to comply meaningfully with the statute." ( Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27, 37, 234 Cal.Rptr. 612 ; Loehr , supra , 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 1083, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576.) Thus, a failure to even estimate the amount of damages on the claim document cannot be remedied by application of the doctrine. (See Loehr, at p. 1083, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576 [claim document did not satisfy the doctrine where "[a]t most, the letter was merely a demand that the Board reinstate plaintiff as superintendent of the district or face possible legal action. The only mention of damages appears as a passing reference to the availability of such relief under the federal Civil Rights Act. Nowhere in the letter is there a claim for money damages, nor, for that matter is there even an estimate of the amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss."].)

C. Analysis

1. The Complaint Form Does Not Substantially Comply with the Requirements of the Government Code.

In his original complaint and every subsequent amended complaint, appellant alleged he had complied with the Act by filing a complaint form with the District on March 6, 2019. The form was attached as an exhibit to the original and second amended complaint. Appellant contends this complaint form substantially complied with the requirements of the Act, and the trial court erred in not finding such compliance.

The complaint form includes a number of prompts and questions. As relevant here, the form requests responses to two prompts: "Describe Incident/Complaint" and "What is your suggestion to resolve the problem?" Appellant's mother replied to both, "Please see back."

On the back of the form, appellant's mother described the incident as follows: "On Tueday, March 5, 2019, [A.S.] was physically manhandled by [his teacher] Mr. Parisio. This assault & battery left bruises on [A.S.’s] arm. Because of the swelling & pain to [his] arm, he was taken to the emergency room where the physician deemed it necessary for [A.S.] to wear a sling for support, as well as to remain home from school for the remainder of the week. I am also aware that the investigation being done at the site is biased, as it seems the principal is attempting to influence the investigation. To other adults on campus, the principal has made statements, such as ‘[A.S.] is not without fault. The family wants people to think he is hurt. Mr. Parisio has a family to support.’ Please know that this is a complaint against staff (Mr. Parisio, and the principal) as well as a uniform complaint."

In the next paragraph, the mother stated: "I suggest that a thorough district level, unbiased and professional investigation be conducted regarding, not only, this incident but the entire school culture, especially the leadership at the site. I suggest that Mr. Parisio receive appropriate discipline for physically attacking a student. I truly believe that Mr. Parisio is a danger to [A.S.] as well as the population of students in general."

In sustaining the District's demurrer to the first amended complaint, the trial court addressed whether the first amended complaint substantially complied with the requirements of the Government Code. The court found: "While the form...