Scanlin v. State of California
Appellant Kurt Scanlin appeals from the trial courts denial of his petition under Government Code section 946.6[1] to relieve him of the statutory requirement of presenting a timely, written claim under section 945.4 before proceeding in tort against the State of California. Scanlins claim against the state arose out of the execution of a search warrant at his residence and business by employees of the State Board of Equalization (BOE) and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). After denial of Scanlins written claim presented to Santa Clara Countythe wrong governmental entitythe California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (the Board) rejected his application to file a late claim against the state, acting through the BOE and CHP, under section 911.6. The trial court then denied Scanlins petition under 946.6, concluding that he had not demonstrated that his failure to have timely filed a government claim against the state was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Court conclude that Scanlin has not demonstrated that the court below abused its discretion and Court accordingly affirm the trial courts order.
Comments on Scanlin v. State of California