The L.A.P.D. owes me mucho dinero- how do I collect from a municipality?

[Campion]

One last point, to address the Sacto issue: I don’t know who reps the LAPD, but I doubt it’s the AG (as the AG’s website says, the AG reps state agencies, not municipal/local ones). I suspect it’s the City Attorney, based on your comment that they’re the ones who have to approve the check. Note that the LAPD, the City Attorney, the AG, and my neighbor the teacher are all public employees, but not all of them are in a direct reporting line to Sacto (indeed, only the AG is). The City Attorney, for example, reports not to Sacto but to the City of Los Angeles, which admittedly gets some of its funding from the state. But leaving aside whether complaining to Sacto will get you anywhere, should you decide you must sue to be paid, as an educational statement only, I direct your attention to Bates v. Franchise Tax Board, 124 Cal.App.4th 367, 382-83 (2004) (holding that a failure to file a claim and allege in the complaint that a claim was filed subjects a complaint to dismissal):

Defendants contend that the damages action is barred because plaintiffs failed to allege their compliance with the Government Claims Act, a prerequisite to a damages action against the State. (Gov. Code, § 905.2; State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.) Government Code section 905.2 provides that a claim must be filed on any claim “for money or damages against the state . . . . [¶] (c) For money or damages (1) on express contract, or (2) for an injury for which the state is liable.” Failure to allege compliance with the claims statute renders the complaint subject to general demurrer. (State of California v. Superior Court, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1239.) {Slip Opn. Page 14}

The claim filing requirement has been held applicable to claims arising out of negligence, nuisance, breach of statutory duties, intentional wrongs and contract. (Baines Pickwick Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 305-307; Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1079.) “A suit for ‘money or damages’ includes all actions where the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, regardless whether the action is founded in ‘“tort, contract or some other theory.”’” (Hart v. County of Alameda (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 766, 778, quoting Baines Pickwick Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 307.)

My google skills are better tonight (thanks to a good night’s sleep), so here’s the link to the Government Claims Act: who has to file a claim and what the claim should be. There are lots more relevant sections but these should give you a flavor.

As always, the above is offered only in an attempt to better educate the public about the law, and is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon. Should this be an actual legal issue, research and read the relevant law or consult an attorney, not a messageboard.

Random, thanks. Don’t know that I’m nicer than you, but I’ll try to live up to that.

[Cartooniverse]

The Government Claims Act. Well, thank you very much for that info. If in fact I get paid, then it’s a moot point. If in fact I’m being snowballed, I shall delve into that world and get the proper forms and paperwork.

Much obliged !

[Quercus]

Look, I watched “L.A. LAW”. I know how it will go. I’ll be given coffee and croissants and billed seventy-five thousand dollars an hour for the privelege of watching Susan Dey flirt with her co-workers. No thank you sir !!!

See, if only you’d worked for the Boston PD, then you’d have the chance to be given a decaff skim latte and Dunkin’ Donuts and billed for the privilege of hearing Calista Flockhart have sex with her co-workers in the bathroom. But at least the guys at the bar downstairs would be ympathetic.

[Cartooniverse]

Gee. Imagine my disappointment.