Estill

Estill v. Cnty. of Shasta

Good Law
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191·25 Cal. App. 5th 702
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2018C077513California3,613 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Mauro, J.

*193 *705 Renee Estill submitted a government claim against the County of Shasta and others, specifically representing that she first became aware of the alleged incident on September 9, 2011. The County *706 accepted Estill's representation and denied her claim on the merits. Because it accepted the claim as timely, the County did not warn Estill to seek leave to present a late claim. This lawsuit followed.

During Estill's deposition, however, defendants learned she was aware of the alleged wrongdoing as early as 2009. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment primarily on the ground that Estill's government claim was untimely, but later granted her motion for a new trial, ruling there are triable issues of fact as to whether defendants waived their defense of untimeliness because the County did not warn Estill that she should seek leave to present a late claim pursuant to Government Code section 911.3, subdivision (b). 1 Defendants appeal from the order granting Estill a new trial, and Estill cross-appeals from the judgment in favor of defendants.

After oral argument in this case, we asked the parties for supplemental briefing on the application of…

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.