Bess v. Foy
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-02012
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Bess v. Foy, Judge Davila dismissed Bess’s state-law claims with prejudice because she filed her required government claim too late.
Klara Bess’s third, fourth, and fifth causes of action—her state-law battery, assault, and Bane Act claims—were dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not state a disposition for her federal constitutional claims.
What happened
Bess v. Foy involved Klara Bess’s claims against Deputies Jeremy Foy and Steven Chirico arising from an arrest. Bess alleged that Deputy Foy used excessive force and that both deputies were responsible for other wrongdoing during the incident.
Bess brought federal constitutional claims and state-law claims for battery, assault, and violating California’s Bane Act. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the three state-law claims because Bess did not submit a claim to the County within the six-month period required by the California Tort Claims Act. Bess agreed that her claim was late but argued that County employees had misled or deterred her from filing on time.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action with prejudice. Judge Edward J. Davila ruled that Bess’s allegations did not show the affirmative misconduct needed to prevent the County from relying on the filing deadline, and that further amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Bess v. Foy · No. 5:19-cv-02012
- Edward Davila
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Klara Bess, representing herself, sued Deputy Jeremy Foy and Deputy Steven Chirico over events arising from her arrest. The First Amended Complaint asserted federal constitutional claims for excessive force and unlawful seizure or arrest, along with California state-law claims for battery, assault, and violation of the Bane Act.
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally recognized claim. Their motion challenged the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action—the state-law claims—based on the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA).
California claim-filing requirement
The CTCA generally requires a person seeking money damages on a tort claim against a government entity or its employees to present an administrative claim to the relevant government entity within six months after the claim arises. The court treated timely claim presentation as a required part of maintaining these state-law claims. Bess filed her claim with Santa Clara County approximately eleven months after the incident, and she did not dispute that the filing was untimely.
Bess argued that the County should be equitably estopped from asserting the deadline. Equitable estoppel is a legal rule that can prevent a party from relying on a requirement when its own conduct improperly caused the other party not to comply. Bess relied on allegations that someone at a County office refused to accept her complaint and told her she could not file until her criminal proceedings ended; that she filed complaints with other public agencies; and that difficult personal circumstances made timely filing difficult.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the allegations were insufficient to show the affirmative misconduct required for equitable estoppel. Bess did not identify who gave her the information, what exactly that person said, or whether she was at the proper location for filing a County claim. The court also noted that her filing of a complaint with the Campbell Police Department within the six-month period undercut her argument that the County’s information had truly misled her.
The complaints filed with other agencies showed an intent to pursue a claim but did not show that the County prevented or deterred her from filing in the correct location. The court likewise ruled that Bess’s personal circumstances, including the difficulties she described after the incident, could not establish equitable estoppel against the County. The court did not consider additional factual allegations raised for the first time in Bess’s opposition to the motion.
Disposition
The court concluded that the First Amended Complaint did not adequately establish compliance with, or an excuse for failing to comply with, the CTCA’s claim-presentation requirement. It found that further amendment would be futile. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action with prejudice. The opinion does not state a disposition for Bess’s federal constitutional claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.