|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
lorez v. Linens 'N Things, Inc. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 447, 451.)
Government Code section 8547.8 requires that a claim be "filed" but does not define the word "filed." Where a word or phrase in a statute has an accepted legal meaning, courts will adopt that definition, unless a contrary legislative intent appears. (Texas Commerce Bank v. Garamendi (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 460, 475; Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 762.)
California case law holds that " paper is filed when it is delivered, at the place where it is to be filed, to the proper officer, and by him received to be kept on file." (W. J. White Co. v. Winton (1919) 41 Cal.App. 693, 695; Pacific Southwest Airlines v. Dowty-Rotol, Ltd. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 491, 493.) Defendants cite no authority imposing the additional requirement that the document receive some kind of official stamp or endorsement in order to qualify as having been "filed." Thus, Lindberg's March 16, 2001 claim was "filed," as long as it was received at the SPB office where it was supposed to be filed. What the SPB does with the document after it is received for filing is irrelevant.
Cieri's testimony and affidavit constituted competent proof that a completed claim with the required jurat was mailed to the SPB on March 16, 2001. This evidence created a presumption that SPB received the claim for filing, and shifted the burden of producing evidence of non-receipt to the SPB. (Evid. Code, ยง 641 [letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail].)
Although Washington's testimony that she could not find the March 16 claim in Lindberg's SPB file may have been sufficient to rebut that presumption, this does not mean there was no substantial evidence to support the inference that it was received. (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 421.) The rebuttal of the presumption created a credibility conflict for the trial court to resolve as the trier of fact. (Id. at pp. 421-422.) Furthermore, " lthough the presumption disappears where . . . it is met with contradictory evidence, inferences may nevertheless be drawn from the same circumstances that gave rise to the presumption in the first place." (Id. at p. 421.)
Here, the court expressly found Cieri's testimony and affidavit stating that she mailed a completed claim on March 16 more believable than Washington's inferential denial of receipt, especially in light of the fact that SPB's method of keeping documents was shown to be less than impeccable. From the fact that Cieri mailed the claim, the court could draw the inference that it was received for filing by the SPB. And since receipt by the agency is all that was necessary to qualify the claim as having been "filed," the court's finding that Lindberg timely filed a proper claim within the meaning of Government Code section 8547.8 is supported by substantia
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|