Issue
In City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2006 WL 773027, Cal.App. 5 Dist., Mar. 28, 2006), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a county is immune, under the Tort Claims Act, from a lawsuit brought against it seeking money that it was legally obligated to pay to a city’s redevelopment agency, but that it had mistakenly withheld.
The Court reversed a trial court decision that the county was immune because the plaintiff in this case was not seeking damages for an injury, but rather the payment of funds it was rightfully owed.
Facts
Pursuant to state law, Tulare County (“County”) collects property taxes and then distributes funds to other local entities. One of those entities, the City of Dinuba Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”), conducted an audit of the county’s tax assessments and allocations and found that the County had assigned incorrect tax rates to some parcels within its boundaries resulting in an underpayment of revenues to the Agency.
The Agency filed a formal claim with the County asking for the full amount of the funds it was entitled to for the prior four years. The County did not act on the claim and the Agency filed a lawsuit. The trial court, citing the immunity protections for public entities and their employees in the Tort Claims Act, dismissed the case. The Agency appealed.
Decision
Had the Agency been seeking damages for an injury it sustained from the County, then the immunity provisions of the Tort Claims Act would have applied, the Court said. However, the Agency was not alleging an injury or seeking damages, it was merely seeking funds it was rightfully owed.
The Court noted the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Minsky v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.Rptr. 102), that “a claim for the specific recovery of property has never been considered a claim for ‘money or damages.’” The Agency’s case, therefore, was contractual, not tort, the Court ruled, and immunity therefore did not apply.
The trial court’s judgment was reversed, and the Agency allowed to pursue its case.