Pollak, Vida & Barer

In Khedr v. Superior Court (Broadmoor Police Protection Dist. et al), ordered published July 13, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 5 declined to issue a writ overturning an order partially sustaining a demurrer. The petitioners, part-time police officers with the defendant district, alleged that they were retaliated against and ultimately terminated after they reported fiscal mismanagement and conflict of interest violations concerning a former police commissioner and chief of police. The officers each submitted a claim form to the district. In the claim form blank for “Date of Loss,” each officer wrote, “Numerous–Loss is ongoing.” In the portion requesting a description of the incident, each officer provided a detailed narrative of multiple acts. No dates for any of the acts were given in the claim. Each claim was signed and dated January 19, 2021, the date of presentation. The district sent the officers’ counsel notices of insufficiency as to each claim, stating, in part, that the claim notices failed to comply with Government Code sections 910 and 910.2 and would not be considered on the merits because they did not specify a date of loss. The officers did not respond to the notices. The district then sent notices of rejection for the claims. The officers and others sued the district, the commissioner/chief, and other individual defendants. The defendants demurred to the officers’ causes of action for whistleblower retaliation, violation of the Bane Act, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that they were barred by the officers’ failure to comply with the Government Claims Act, by presenting notices that did not include the dates of the acts allegedly giving rise to liability. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. The officers petitioned the appellate court for writ relief.

The appellate court found writ review appropriate for an order partially sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. But it ruled the trial court did not err. Government Code section 945.4 bars a lawsuit that requires a claim under Government Code section 910 unless a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the entity or has been deemed rejected. Government Code section 910 requires that the claim state the date, place, and other circumstances of the occurence or transation that gave rise to the claim asserted. The officers contended that the information presented on their claim forms complied with section 910. They argued that the claim form was defective because it asked for the date of “loss” instead of “occurrence or transaction.” The officers did not provide a reasoned argument why that discrepancy absolves them of the from the requirement to provide dates in the claim forms. Despite the incorrect term used on the claim form, the parties and the trial court correclty understood the issue to be what date information a claimant must provide in asserting a claim for continuing injury. Relying on Knight v. City of Los Angeles (1945) 26 Cal.2d 764, asserted no date need be stated for an ongoing occurrence. But in Knight, the claimants provided a date range in their claim for when their damages occurred, while the claims here provided no dates or ranges. The officers also argued that the date they signed their forms, coupled with the statement that the date of loss was ongoing, complied with section 910. That did not comply with the requirement to state the date of the occurrence. Although the dates of conduct are detailed in the officers’ operative complaint, the adequacy of the claims must be resolved based on the information in the claim forms. The officers asserted the claims were proper under the continuing violation doctrine, but did not explain how that doctrine validated claim forms that did not state a date. Without dates, the court cannot determine whether the elements of a continuing violation are met, including whether similar actions occurred with sufficient frequency and were similar in kind to conduct within the limitations period. The officers alleged that the claims substantially complied with the Act’s requirements. But the substantial compliance doctrine cannot be invoked when the claim fails to comply at all with a statutory requirement for a valid claim, such as providing a date of occurrence or transaction. The court rejected the argument that the district waived the argument of lack of substantial compliance, since the district sent notices of insufficiency based on the failure to specify dates.