Affholter, et. al. vs. Franklin County Water District, et.al., No. 1:2007cv00388 - Document 510 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: Memorandum Decision DENYING FCWD'S 453 Motion for Summary Judgment Re Flood-Related California Tort Claims Act Claims signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/15/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ABARCA, RAUL VALENCIA, et al., 10 1:07-CV-0388 OWW DLB Plaintiff, 11 MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING FCWD S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE FLOOD-RELATED CALIFORNIA TORT CLAIMS ACT CLAIMS v. 12 MERCK & CO., et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the court for decision is Defendant Franklin County 16 Water District s ( FCWD ) motion for summary judgment, converted 17 from a previously-filed motion to dismiss, concerning Plaintiffs 18 flood-related claims under the California Tort Claims Act 19 ( CTCA ). 20 is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs Thirteenth, 21 Fourteenth, and Eighteenth Claims for Relief because they exceed 22 the scope of the nine sets of CTCA claims submitted to FCWD by 23 Plaintiffs. See Doc. 284, 423, 473. Specifically, FCWD argues it Doc. 284 at 4. 24 Prior to filing suit under the CTCA, a Plaintiff must 25 properly present his or her claim to the relevant public agency 26 1 1 2 3 pursuant to California Government Code § 910, which provides: A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following: 4 a) The name and post office address of the claimant; 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent; c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted; d) The 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; e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage or loss, if known; and f) The amount claimed if it totals less then ten thousand ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, ... If the amount claimed exceeds $10,000, no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. A claim that provides the above information satisfies the 19 claims presentation requirement, even if it omits other 20 information requested on a claim form. Blair v. Superior Court, 21 218 Cal. App. 3d 221, 225 (1990). Technical defects will not 22 invalidate a claim, so long as there has been substantial 23 24 compliance with the claims filing requirement. Phillips v. 25 Desert Hospital District, 49 Cal. 3d 699, 706 (1989). 26 as to whether a claim has substantially complied with the 27 Government Code requirements, is whether sufficient information 28 2 The test 1 is disclosed to enable a public entity to investigate and 2 evaluate the claim to determine whether settlement is 3 appropriate. Id. 4 Within twenty (20) days after a claim has been presented, 5 the public entity may give the claimant written notice of any 6 7 substantial defects or omissions that prevent the claim from 8 complying substantially with requirements of Government Code § 9 911. 10 provide such notice, waives any defense based upon a defect or 11 omission within the claim. 12 See Cal. Gov. Code § 910.8. A public entity that fails to Martinez v. County of Los Angeles, 78 Cal. App. 3d 242, 245 (1978); Phillips, 49 Cal. 3d at 705. 13 In Crow v. State of California, 222 Cal. App. 3d 192, 14 15 (1990), two of plaintiff s four causes of action were barred by 16 the CTCA because they exceeded the scope of the claims submitted 17 through the claim presentation process. 18 student at a state university, was assaulted by another student 19 in a dormitory. 20 causes of action, which were based on contract and alleged that Id. at 197. The plaintiff, who was a The plaintiff s third and fourth 21 the university breached the dormitory residence agreement in not 22 providing a reasonably safe and secure environment, did not fall 23 24 within the scope of the claim presented, which described the 25 assault and alleged that the university knew the student was 26 dangerous, but did not mention the contract with the university, 27 or allege any special relationship between the plaintiff and the 28 3 Id. 1 university because of the contract. 2 to give the public entity the opportunity to evaluate the merit 3 and extent of its liability. This was insufficient Id. at 202. 4 The first group of claims presented to FCWD by Plaintiffs 5 list the date of accident/incident/loss as on or about April 4, 6 7 2006, and continuing, and describe the incident as follows: FCWD controls, constructed or authorized the construction of a sewage plant adjacent to a portion of channel known as El Capitan/Black Rascal Creek. The sewage plant is in violation of federal and state regulations in that contaminants have over time escaped into adjacent public water ways and contaminated property including that of claimant. Further, the sewage plant has in the past and continues to discharge sewage to surface and groundwater in close proximity to claimant s property so as to interfere with claimant s use and enjoyment of his/her property. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 FWCD s Request for Judicial Notice ( RJN ), Doc. 285, at Exhs. AC. The resulting damage and injury is described as follows: Damage and injury to property and person, including but not limited to personal injury, emotional distress, fear of illness, medial monitoring, exposure to contaminants and toxins, damage to structures, loss of use, loss of income, loss of business good will and profits, loss of animals, relocation costs, restoration costs, repair costs, remedial costs, cleanup costs, investigative costs to determine nature and extent of damages, including future costs associated with same, diminution in value, stigma damages, mitigation costs, past, present and future. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Id. FWCD asserts that the flood claims included in the 26 currently-operative complaint exceed the scope of the underlying 27 CTCA claim, which does not mention the word flood or 28 4 1 flooding. 2 specifically list the date of the flood, April 4, 2006, and 3 continuing, as the date of loss. Doc. 284 at 5. Plaintiffs rejoin that the claims Plaintiffs argue that FCWD 4 certainly was aware of the flooding that occurred on April 4, 5 2006, in Merced. Doc. 423 at 5. Plaintiffs emphasize that they 6 7 are not making a claim, nor have ever made the claim that FCWD 8 somehow caused the flooding event or contributed in any 9 significant manner to the volume of water which ultimately made 10 its way on to plaintiffs property. Rather, plaintiffs theory of 11 liability against FCWD has always centered around the release of 12 sewage contamination from the facility that made its way into El 13 Capitan Canal and Black Rascal Creek, and ultimately released 14 15 onto plaintiffs property at various times, including during the Id. This allegation is arguably 16 flooding event in April 2006. 17 covered by the claim s assertion that on or about April 4, 2006, 18 and continuing.... contaminants have over time escaped into 19 adjacent public water ways [from the sewage plant] and 20 contaminated property including that of claimant. This put FWCD 21 on notice that Plaintiffs were claiming that FCWD maintained and 22 operated a sewage treatment plant to effect releases of 23 24 contaminants which damaged Plaintiffs property. FWCD was also 25 on noticed that the flood event was one possible mechanism by 26 which contaminants from its sewage facility could have been 27 carried onto Plaintiffs property. 28 5 1 FWCD also complains about the following language from the 2 claims: 3 discharge sewage to surface and groundwater in close proximity of [T]he sewage plant has in the past and continues to 4 claimant s property so as to interfere with claimants use and 5 enjoyment of his/her property. See Doc. 473 at 2. FWCD argues 6 7 that this does not state that Plaintiffs property was actually 8 impacted. 9 Plaintiffs property was actually contaminated by the escaped 10 sewage. 11 claims presented to FCWD, and permitted FCWD to investigate, 12 But, other portions of the claim indicate that The flood claims fall within the scope of the CTCA evaluate, and defend against Plaintiffs claims. 13 FCWD s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 14 15 16 SO ORDERED 17 Dated: July 15, 2009 18 19 20 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger___ Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
