Chase v. State of California

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff did not timely commence an action against the State of California under the Tort Claims Act. Although the plaintiff filed an original complaint naming fictitious Doe defendants within six months after rejection of his claim, the State was not named or identified until approximately 20 months later. The court concluded that the Act's mandatory six-month commencement requirement was not satisfied through later substitution of the State as a Doe defendant and affirmed dismissal.

Holdings

1. The original complaint did not commence an action against the State because the State was not named, identified, or alleged to be liable when the action was filed; adding the State 20 months later did not satisfy the requirement that an action against the State be commenced within six months after rejection of the claim.
2. The six-month period for commencing an action against the State is absolute and is not extended by the plaintiff's lack of knowledge, mistake, inadvertence, or later discovery of facts indicating the State's involvement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether filing an action naming Doe defendants, without naming or alleging a cause of action against the State of California, commenced an action against the State within six months after rejection of the Tort Claims Act claim.
2. Whether California Code of Civil Procedure section 474's fictitious-defendant relation-back rule applies to satisfy the California Tort Claims Act's mandatory six-month commencement requirement.

Disposition

affirmed