Legal Question in Administrative Law in California

Re: CA Tort Claim

Upon presentation of a claim, the agency's governing body has four choices: (1) approve; (2) deny; (3) notify the claimant that the claim is insufficient; or (4) do nothing.

Without actually seeing both the claim and the response, I can't be absolutely sure, but it rather sounds as though the response would fall into the "do nothing" category because it probably fails to meet the criteria for 1 through 3 and by default is a non-response.

I therefore think that not long after the 45 days is up, you would be justified in proceeding to file your claim in court as though it had been rejected. Doing nothing within 45 days amounts to a rejection. (The most obvious possible flaw in this would be if the response you got, in addition to saying the claim was being "considered," also pointed out specific insufficiences, in which case you'd need to amend your notice to correct the alleged insufficiencies and do so ASAP.)

I would recommend inquiring as to the status of the claim around 48 to 55 days after filing, to determine the board's position. If they believe they have rejected your claim, you have six months from the date of mailing the notice of rejection to file suit without the issue of a proper rejection arising. If they have taken no action, I believe you have two years from the accrual of the cause of action to file suit.

If in doubt, the safer course is to file as soon as it is clear your claim has been formally rejected or has been pocket-vetoed by inaction.

If a significant sum of money is involved, I'd recommend retaining a lawyer.