Barkley

Barkley v. City of Blue Lake

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 673·47 Cal. App. 4th 309·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 679·96 Daily Journal DAR 8356·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5193
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 10, 1996A071174California3,484 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

In this case, we hold that an action on a judgment against a public entity is not subject to the claim filing requirements of Government Code sections 905 and 945.4.

The City of Blue Lake (the City) appeals from a summary judgment granted to respondent Patrick J. Barkley. Barkley brought an action on a judgment against the City, which awarded him damages for breach of a contract to construct a sewer system. The City contends the trial court erroneously rejected three of its defenses: (1) Barkley’s recovery was subject to the constitutional debt limitation provided in article XVI, section 18 of the California Constitution; (2) laches; and (3) failure to comply with the claim filing requirements of sections 905 and 945.4. Barkley contends the City’s appeal is frivolous and asks us to impose sanctions. We affirm the judgment and decline to impose sanctions.

Facts

Much of the history of this protracted litigation is set out in our opinion on a previous appeal. (Barkley v. City of Blue Lake (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1745 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 ].) We briefly recapitulate that history to set the stage for the present controversy. In December 1969, Barkley obtained a judgment for…

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.