City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 621·17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 303·93 Daily Journal DAR 4313·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2211
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 1993B070733California3,192 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

Petitioner, the City of Los Angeles, seeks a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to grant its motion for summary judgment. Because plaintiffs’ lawsuit and petition for relief from the claims requirement were not timely filed, the summary judgment motion should have been granted. Accordingly, the petition is granted.

II. Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiffs Mark and Janette Katz suffered damages to their real and personal property when a city sewer backed up and “flooded the entire house with human waste and other raw sewage.” Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that this occurred on or about April 9, 1990. On April 5, 1991, plaintiffs submitted to the city a claim for $62,225 in damages to their real and personal property. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.) On April 19, 1991, the city denied the claim as untimely because it was not filed within six months after the date on which the damage occurred. Plaintiffs were advised that they could seek leave from the city to present a late claim. (§ 911.4.)

In a letter to the city dated April 26, 1991, plaintiffs asserted that their real property damage claim was timely pursuant to section 911.2 because it…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.