B. v. City of Oakland
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-07078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Zelda B. v. City of Oakland, Judge Ryu denied relief from California claim-filing requirements because the petition belonged in state court.
The plaintiffs’ request to bypass California’s claim-filing requirement for their state-law claims was denied; the underlying claims were not decided by this order.
What happened
Zelda B., et al. v. City of Oakland, et al. concerns a civil-rights lawsuit arising from an incident at a high school basketball game. The plaintiffs said a person identified as LaRichea Smith harassed them, used a racial slur, and physically confronted one of them. They asked to be excused from California’s requirement that certain claims against public entities first be filed with the entity.
The court held that California law requires a petition seeking this relief to be filed in a California Superior Court, not federal court. It therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion and also denied their request to transfer it to state court. The court did not decide the defendants’ separate argument that the motion was untimely.
Judge Donna M. Ryu issued the order on January 11, 2022. The ruling addressed the proper court for seeking relief from the state claim-filing requirement and did not decide the underlying constitutional, disability, or state-law claims.
The detailed version
- B. v. City of Oakland · No. 4:21-cv-07078
- Donna Ryu
- Jan. 11, 2022
Background
Phyllis A. Thomas and Charles A. Thomas, Sr., their adult children, and two minor grandchildren sued the City of Oakland, Oakland Unified School District, and LaRichea Smith. They alleged that Smith confronted some of them at a basketball game at McClymonds High School on February 15, 2020. According to the complaint, Smith demanded that some plaintiffs leave a section reserved for people with disabilities, used a racial slur, and later attacked Charles A. Thomas, Sr. and knocked his phone from his hand.
The complaint asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, as well as claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California civil-rights statutes, and for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Motion and governing law
The plaintiffs sought relief under California Government Code section 946.6 from the California Government Claims Act’s claim-filing requirement. That requirement generally bars a damages suit against a public entity until the plaintiff has first presented a written claim to the entity and the claim has been acted on or treated as rejected. Claims involving personal injury generally must be presented within six months after the claim arises. The opinion states that this presentation requirement applies only to state-law claims, not claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The plaintiffs presented claims to Oakland and the school district on February 12, 2021, more than six months after the February 15, 2020 incident. Oakland rejected the claims as untimely and denied applications to present late claims. The school district also rejected the claims as untimely, although it accepted two late-claim applications submitted for Zelda B. and Cynthia M. and denied the adult plaintiffs’ applications.
Ruling
The court concluded that it lacked authority to grant the requested relief because section 946.6 requires the petition to be filed in a California Superior Court that would be a proper court for the related action. The plaintiffs did not meaningfully dispute that state court was the proper forum. They instead asked the federal court to transfer the petition, but they identified no federal rule or other authority permitting that transfer.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the section 945.4 claim-filing requirements and denied their request to transfer the motion to state court. The court did not reach the defendants’ separate argument that the motion was untimely because it resolved the matter based on the federal court’s lack of authority. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.