Romero v. County of Santa Clara

Citations: 3 Cal. App. 3d 700; 83 Cal. Rptr. 758; 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1166Docket: Civ. 25221

Court: California Court of Appeal; January 21, 1970; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Juanita C. Romero filed an amended complaint seeking damages for the destruction of her 48 dogs and for bodily harm and mental suffering, alleging that the County of Santa Clara and certain employees acted "intentionally, wrongfully, and maliciously." Romero claimed that her administrative claim to the County was deemed rejected on November 22, 1967, and acknowledged that she did not file a lawsuit within the required six-month period following the rejection, as mandated by Government Code sections 945.6(a) and 950.2. She alleged reliance on misleading information from unnamed court assistants, who indicated she had one year to file her suit, leading her to file within that timeframe on June 1, 1967. The County responded with a general and special demurrer, both of which were sustained without leave to amend, resulting in a judgment of dismissal.

The court examined whether the complaint and affidavits raised a triable issue of estoppel against the statute of limitations. While estoppel can be invoked based on the conduct of individuals with a legal duty concerning claims, the court concluded that the unnamed court assistants did not qualify as agents of the County for this purpose. However, since the clerk of the superior court is recognized as the county clerk, the complaint was deemed sufficient against the general demurrer. The special demurrer was upheld due to the ambiguity regarding the unnamed assistants. The court noted that while the allegations lacked clarity regarding intent and purpose, they were amendable. If the dismissal was solely based on the general demurrer concerning estoppel, it would be reversed.

The amended complaint claims that the individual defendants acted within their employment scope, making the county's liability derivative of their actions. A legal presumption exists that official duties are performed correctly, as per Evidence Code § 664, and to establish a cause of action, the complaint must present facts that would counter this presumption. The amended complaint does not allege that the actions of the animal shelter or pound staff were unauthorized. An appeal regarding the order sustaining the general demurrer is improper, as such an order is not appealable. However, the judgment of dismissal followed a motion for summary judgment, which accepted the accuracy of Juanita Romero's affidavit. In her affidavit, Romero recounts a history of legal issues stemming from keeping 50 dogs, leading to a guilty plea for maintaining a public nuisance and subsequent court orders regarding her dogs. Despite the court not ordering the destruction of her dogs, Barghini and Hains reportedly destroyed them on July 6. Although it is assumed that official duties were performed properly, the county's affidavits lack necessary details to clarify the incident as an official action. The affidavits focus on an estoppel defense without adequately addressing the validity of the statements made, as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 437c.

Appellant was represented by attorneys Mr. Alfonso Romero and Mr. Livak, who warned her in May 1967 that time was running short to file her claim. Additionally, Miss Molly H. Minudri represented her, and other attorneys contacted the county counsel on her behalf. These representations negated the applicability of estoppel, as established by *Tubbs v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.* The failure to sue within the specified timeframe was critical to her case. No application was made under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, which could have addressed any claims of surprise, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Although the court sympathized with the appellant regarding her lost pets, it noted that a nuisance exists when a right is improperly placed, referencing *Cook v. Hatcher*. The judgment was affirmed, with concurrence from Shoemaker, P.J. and Taylor, J. The Supreme Court later transferred proceedings to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of *In re Winship*. Appellant's affidavit did not substantiate her broad claims regarding misrepresentations by county officials. She cited multiple individuals, including a clerk and Humane Society staff, who allegedly advised her on the timeframe to file suit. The document also references legal precedents regarding the power to order dog destruction.