Opinion
G057599
03-09-2020
JASON GARDNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Defendant and Respondent.
Jason Gardner, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck, Zachary M. Schwartz, William L. Haluck and Scott A. Martin for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00940438) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda S. Marks, Judge. Affirmed. Jason Gardner, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck, Zachary M. Schwartz, William L. Haluck and Scott A. Martin for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
Jason Gardner sued the County of Orange (the County) for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment after a jury acquitted him of misdemeanor assault and battery charges. The false imprisonment claim was based on allegations the County failed to release him from jail until a day or two after he had been acquitted. The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the County's demurrer to Gardner's third amended complaint. Gardner appealed from the resulting judgment of dismissal.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Gardner complied with the Government Claims Act (the Claims Act), Government Code section 810 et seq., with respect to his claim for false imprisonment. Exercising de novo review (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415), we conclude Gardner failed to allege facts showing he timely presented the County with a claim for false imprisonment. We therefore affirm.
All code citations are to the Government Code.
FACTS
Gardner alleged he was falsely arrested by City of Orange police officers in January 2017 based on accusations he had assaulted a woman. It appears he was released from custody. On several occasions in February and March 2017, he went to the Orange County District Attorney's Office to ask about the trial for the assault and battery charge. Gardner alleged that on each occasion district attorney personnel falsely told him no trial had been scheduled and a warrant for his arrest had not been issued.
In March 2017, a misdemeanor complaint against Gardner was filed and a warrant for his arrest was issued. The complaint alleged one count of misdemeanor assault and one count of misdemeanor battery. City of Orange police officers arrested Gardner on April 11, 2017 and put him in jail, where he remained until after his trial concluded.
Gardner alleged the criminal trial started on May 9, 2017. On May 15, 2017, a jury returned a verdict finding Gardner not guilty. Gardner alleged he was not released from jail until May 17, 2017. According to booking records from the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Gardner was released on May 16, 2017.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Government Claims
Gardner presented three claims to the County before filing his lawsuit. The first claim, presented on June 14, 2017, described the circumstances leading to the claim as: "[T]he D.A. employees at the D.A. office in the courthouse lied to me about my court date and told me it was still under review and that there was not a court date yet or a warrant for me. Because of this I was later fals[e]ly arrested for failure to appear at court on 4-11-2017 in Orange." Gardner asserted, "I was fals[e]ly arrested for a crime I did not do and put in jail a little for over a month." Gardner identified the dates of the occurrence as March 28 and April 11, 2017 and named "D.A. Employees" as the persons causing his injury.
Gardner presented his second claim on June 19, 2017. He described the circumstances leading to the claim as: "I went to court for trial for a misdemeanor ticket I had and no trial was on the docket. I talked to the D.A. and [the] D.A. told me that the case is still under review and no trial is scheduled and no warrant out for me. They said to keep checking back 2 weeks for court date, I was later fals[e]ly arrested for a warrant for me for failure to appear by Orange police." Gardner identified the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim as "February 7, 2017." He described the damage or injury as, "I was fals[e]ly arrested and put in jail for about a month and a half. I was put on trial for [a] crime I did not do." He named the county employees causing his injury as "D.A. and court employees."
Gardner presented his third claim on August 28, 2017. He described the circumstances leading to the claim as: "I was fals[e]ly put on trial by D.A. lawyers and court who did malicious prosecution." He identified the dates of the occurrence as May 9 through 15, 2017—the dates of his trial. He described the damage or injury again as, "I was fals[e]ly put on trial for a crime I did not do and put in jail during this and before." He named the county employees causing his injury as: "D.A. office staff and lawyers at 700 West Civic Center Drive, Central Justice Center."
II. Superior Court Lawsuit
Gardner, representing himself, filed his original complaint on the same day he presented his third claim to the County. He alleged: (1) district attorney employees lied to him when, in February and March 2017, he asked about his trial, (2) he was falsely arrested and imprisoned, and (3) he was the victim of malicious prosecution by the district attorney.
The County demurred to the complaint on the grounds: (1) there was no cause of action authorized under the Claims Act or Gardner's assertion that district attorney employees had lied to him; (2) the County was immune under section 821.6 from liability for malicious prosecution; and (3) Gardner's allegations did not state a cause of action for false arrest because he was arrested pursuant to a valid arrest warrant issued by the superior court. The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.
Gardner filed a first amended complaint alleging malicious prosecution and false arrest. According to the respondent's brief, Gardner agreed to file an amended complaint after conferring over the first amended complaint.
Gardner filed a second amended complaint alleging the County falsely imprisoned him by failing to release him immediately upon his acquittal. He attached copies of the three claims he had presented to the County. The County demurred to the second amended complaint on the ground the causes of action asserted failed to state claims, and on the ground Gardner had not complied with the Claims Act with respect to the allegations the County failed to release him from jail.
The trial court sustained without leave to amend the County's demurrer with respect to any malicious prosecution or false arrest causes of action. The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend the cause of action for false imprisonment. The court stated: "As to the cause of action for false imprisonment, [Gardner] must allege facts showing compliance with the governmental claim act pursuant to Govt. Code §910, et. seq., and state facts to support a claim having been made of false imprisonment on May 15, and/or May 16, 2017 in his third amended complaint."
Gardner filed a third amended complaint again alleging the County falsely imprisoned him by making him stay in jail for a day and a half after the jury acquitted him. He alleged he had timely filed claims pursuant to the Claims Act and attached to the third amended complaint copies of the three claims he had presented to the County.
The County demurred to the third amended complaint. The County argued Gardner failed to allege he had complied with the Claims Act by presenting a claim for false imprisonment to the County.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court described this case as "unfortunate" but concluded Gardner had not complied with the Claims Act with respect to his claim of false imprisonment. The court found: "A claim for false imprisonment because [Gardner] remained in custody after a not guilty verdict was never made. Because it was never made, the . . . Claim[s] Act prevents this case from going forward. The time has also passed to make such the claim. The letter allowing [Gardner] to file a claim refers to other facts not false imprisonment because he was kept in custody for a day and half longer after the not guilty verdict. [¶] The Third Amended Complaint and attached exhibits do not show facts to support his claim for false imprisonment occurring AFTER the not guilty verdict and Order for release."
A judgment of dismissal was entered in favor of the County. Gardner timely appealed from the judgment.
DISCUSSION
I. We Decline to Find Waiver or Abandonment of Issues.
The County argues Gardner waived or abandoned the issues raised by his appeal because his brief has no citations to the record or to legal authority of any kind. It is true Gardner's brief does not comply with rule 8.204(a) of the California Rules of Court. His brief has no citations to the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)) and does not state each point under a separate heading (id., rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)). It is also true that self-represented litigants, such as Gardner, must follow the rules of procedure and are not entitled to "exceptionally lenient treatment." (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247-1248.)
However, we decline to find waiver or abandonment. Given the circumstances of this case, in which it is undisputed that Gardner was held in jail after he had been acquitted, we believe Gardner is entitled have his arguments considered and to know the reasons why his claim for false imprisonment cannot proceed.
II. Gardner Did Not Present a Claim to the County
for False Imprisonment.
"As a general rule, a plaintiff must present a public entity with a timely written claim for damages before filing suit against it. [Citation.] If a complaint does not allege facts showing that a claim was timely made, or that compliance with the claims statutes is excused, it is subject to demurrer." (J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 648, 652.)
"The [Claims] Act establishes a uniform claims procedure, making the filing of a claim within a brief period of the injury a prerequisite to maintaining a suit for damages." (Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 908.) The Claims Act is comprised of "a comprehensive format specifying the parameters of governmental liability, including . . . a detailed procedure for the advance filing of a claim as a prerequisite to filing suit" and deadlines for "both the filing of claims and the commencement of litigation." (Schmidt v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 23, 28, fn. omitted.)
Part 3 of division 3.6 of title 1 of the Government Code (§§ 900-935.9) sets forth procedures for presenting claims against public entities. Part 4 of the same title and division (§ 940 et seq.) sets forth procedures for actions against public entities and public employees.
Section 945.4 requires a party to present a written claim to the public entity before the claimant may bring a lawsuit against that public entity. Except as provided in sections 946.4 and 946.6, a timely claim must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the board of the public entity before the claimant may file a lawsuit. (§ 945.4.) Among other things, a claim must show "[t]he date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted," must provide "[a] general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim," and must identify "[t]he name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known." (§ 910, subds. (c)-(e).)
None of the three claims that Gardner presented to the County relates to his claim for false imprisonment. The first claim was for false arrest, identified March 28 and April 11, 2017 as the dates of the occurrence, and "D.A. Employees" as the persons causing his injuries. The second claim, also for false arrest, described the circumstances leading to the claim as being told by district attorney personnel in March and April 2017 that his trial had not been scheduled and a warrant for his arrest had not been issued. The third claim was for malicious prosecution, described the circumstances leading to the claim as being put on trial by the district attorney, identified the dates of the circumstances as May 9 through 15, 2017, and named the persons causing his injuries as "D.A. office staff and lawyers."
None of these claims described time spent in jail after Gardner's acquittal as the circumstance leading to the claim, none identified May 16 and 17, 2017 as the dates of the circumstances, and none named the County sheriff or anybody at the jail as the persons causing his injury. The claims did not satisfy the purposes of the claims presentation requirement of giving the County notice and opportunity to investigate and make accommodations for a claim of false imprisonment. (Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 909.)
Gardner relies on Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 12 Cal.3d 710 and Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 806. In Sullivan, the California Supreme Court held a person who is confined in jail beyond his or her jail term may maintain an action for false imprisonment against the county. (Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 713.) In Rodriguez, the Court of Appeal held a county can be held vicariously liable for false imprisonment by county employees. (Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 807.) Neither case addresses compliance with the Claims Act.
Gardner did not allege facts showing he presented the County with a timely written claim for damages for false imprisonment based on being kept in custody after his acquittal. He therefore could not proceed on his false imprisonment claim, and it was properly dismissed. He does not challenge the order denying leave to amend his claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. We therefore affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. In the interest of justice, no party may recover costs on appeal.
FYBEL, J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. GOETHALS, J.