Setterlund

Setterlund v. Bothamley

Good Law
21 F. App'x 735
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 6, 2001No. 00-35364; D.C. No. CV-99-03049-EFSCalifornia733 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Although plaintiff failed to comply with the statute requiring her to file a claim with a local government entity before commencing suit, 1 the defendants are estopped to assert that shield.

The Washington Supreme Court has held that “the doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied against the state or against a political subdivision when acting in its governmental as well as proprietary capacity when necessary to prevent a manifest injustice, and the exercise of governmental powers will not thereby be impaired .” 2 The doctrine has been extended to tort actions. 3 The requirements for equitable estoppel are:

The Clinic made statements and acted inconsistently with its status as a government agency, which it claimed as a shield in this litigation. These were affirmative acts. In all its bills to Setterlund, it represented itself to be “Family Practice Clinic,” on forms common to private medical practices. More significantly, it maintained an official registration in the State of Washington Department of Licensing that said that the “registered owner” of “Family Practice Clinic” was “Thompson & Garnett.” It registered the “owner type” as “partnership,” with the…

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.