Ac transit j line schedule code#
Ac transit j line schedule trial#

On May 18, 1993, after receiving the complaint, the County contacted appellant's counsel advising that it (1) was a separate public entity from respondent (2) did not process or accept claims for respondent and (3) was not liable for appellant's damages. Appellant served respondent on May 11, 1993. The notice did not state the reason for denying the claim, but did advise appellant that he had six months within which to sue.Īppellant filed suit on April 28, 1993, more than one year after the date of the accident, but within six months of receiving the notice. (b).) The County served a formal rejection of the claim on January 13, 1993. That claim was rejected by operation of law on December 8, 1992.

Ac transit j line schedule code#

Code § 945.6), appellant presented a claim which named both the County of Alameda (hereafter County) and respondent, to the County, and not to respondent. On October 23, 1992, one day prior to the expiration of the six-month deadline for filing a claim with a public entity (Gov. Code § 810 et seq.) apply.Īppellant retained counsel to prosecute his claim. For this reason, the requirements of the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Respondent is a public entity, created pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 24501 et seq.

Ac transit j line schedule trial#

Because the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, we must vacate the judgment and order entered as a result of the motion for reconsideration.Īppellant was seriously injured on April 24, 1992, while allegedly a passenger on one of respondent's buses. We further conclude that the alternative bases of respondent's motion, requests for a new trial and for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, also cannot support the challenged order.

Code § 810 et seq.) We conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over respondent's motion to reconsider. Sluis for Defendants and Respondents.Īppellant appeals from a judgment of dismissal, based upon the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, which was entered after the trial court granted respondent's motion to reconsider its initial order granting appellant relief, pursuant to Government Code section 946.6, from the claims filing requirements of the Tort Claims Act.

Steel, Clarence & Buckley, Stuary Buckley, John Beattie and Thomas Steel for Plaintiff and Appellant. PHILIP GILBERD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.