Clarke

TrafficSchoolOnline, Inc. v. Clarke

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 4th 736·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1549·2003 Daily Journal DAR 11419·5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 408·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9101
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 2003No. B161974California2,597 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Turner, J.

*738 Opinion

Plaintiff, TrafficSchoolOnline, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, John A. Clarke and the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. Because all of plaintiff’s damage claims are barred by its failure to file a Government Code section 945.4 claim, summary judgment was properly entered. We therefore reject plaintiff’s argument that an incidental damage cause of action, when joined with a request for equitable relief in a mandate petition, is not subject to the Government Code section 945.4 claim requirement.

On September 3, 1999, plaintiff filed an amended mandate petition naming as defendants the former Los Angeles Judicial District of the Los Angeles County Municipal Court, a committee of that court, and its former administrator, Frederick K. Ohlrich. The amended mandate petition sought to compel the court to: apply its published procedures in determining whether to use plaintiff as a home study traffic program; apply its published procedures and criteria to all applicants seeking approval of their home study traffic programs; and, in alternative to the first two options, to list plaintiff as an…

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.