gno.law

Calvao v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · D007617 · 1988-05-05 · Published · 201 Cal. App. 3d 921 · 247 Cal. Rptr. 470 · 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 508

ROD CALVAO, as Auditor, Etc., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; MYRON KLIPPERT, Real Party in Interest

Area
civil
Panel
Don R. Work (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T07:40Z · confidence high

The trial court, in a de novo review of a small claims judgment, ruled in favor of the employee by finding a fiduciary relationship that delayed the accrual of the cause of action until the pay error was discovered. The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate to reverse the judgment, holding that the claim was barred by the county's one-year limitations period because the cause of action accrued at the time of each missed salary payment.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
The trial court's determination that a fiduciary relationship existed between the county and the employee, which tolled the statute of limitations until the error was discovered.
“The superior court in its trial de novo believed there was a fiduciary relationship between the county and its employees. This relationship, it believed, meant Klippert had no duty to inquire whether his compensation was correct and the cause of action would not “accrue” until the underpayment was discovered.”
de novoerroragree with court
The appellate court correctly identified that the relationship was contractual rather than fiduciary, citing Labor Code section 2750. By applying the rule from Jones v. Tracy School District that salary claims accrue at the time of each periodic payment, the court properly determined the one-year limitations period under the County Administrative Code had expired for the majority of the claimed period. The trial court's reliance on a non-existent fiduciary duty to delay accrual was a misapplication of law to an employment contract context.

Authorities

  • relied: Jones v. Tracy School Dist. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 99 — A cause of action for salary accrues at the time each periodic salary payment is made, triggering the running of a new limitations period.
  • relied: United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 — A peremptory writ is proper where an alternative writ would add nothing to the presentation.
  • relied: Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692 — A peremptory writ is proper where an alternative writ would add nothing to the presentation.
  • relied: Eloby v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 972 — Small claims appeals to superior court are final and not appealable, but review by petition for writ is permissible.
  • relied: Davis v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 164 — Review by petition for writ is permissible for final judgments from small claims court.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the established rule from Jones v. Tracy School District regarding the accrual of salary claims and properly rejects the trial court's erroneous finding of a fiduciary relationship in a standard employment context. The court also correctly cites authority supporting the issuance of a peremptory writ rather than an alternative writ.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:32Z · confidence medium

The superior court, on trial de novo from a small claims judgment, awarded County employee Myron Klippert bonus back pay withheld for more than one year before discovery of a clerical error, reasoning that a fiduciary relationship between the County and its employees delayed accrual of his claim until discovery. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance directing the superior court to set aside that judgment and enter judgment for the County, holding that a salary claim accrues with each periodic payment and that no fiduciary relationship exists in the employment context.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Superior court's determination that a fiduciary relationship existed between the County and its employee such that the employee had no duty to inquire about his compensation
“However, this is an employment contract situation. There is no confidential or fiduciary relationship in this context. (See Lab. Code, §2750.)”
de novoerror (law misapplied)agree with court
Whether an employment relationship is fiduciary is a question of law, and California law treats the employer-employee relationship as contractual, not confidential; the court's citation to Labor Code section 2750 (defining the employment contract) is thin but the conclusion is consistent with settled law.
Superior court's judgment awarding bonus back pay for the period more than one year before discovery, treating the cause of action as not accruing until the underpayment was discovered
“A cause of action for salary accrues at the time each periodic salary payment is made, triggering the running of a new limitations period.”
de novoerror (law misapplied)agree with court
Under Government Code sections 905(c) and 935, the County's claims ordinance governs employee salary claims, and under Jones v. Tracy School Dist. each underpayment starts a new one-year period under Administrative Code section 147; absent a fiduciary relationship or a pleaded estoppel, the discovery rule does not save payments outside that window, so the County's reimbursement for one year was all that was owed.

Authorities

  • relied: Jones v. Tracy School Dist. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 99 — A cause of action for underpaid salary accrues with each periodic salary payment, each triggering a new limitations period.
  • relied: United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 — A peremptory writ may issue in the first instance where an alternative writ or order to show cause would add nothing.
  • relied: Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692 — Peremptory writ in the first instance is proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 1088 where further briefing would not aid decision.
  • relied: Eloby v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 972 — Small claims appeals to the superior court are final and not appealable.
  • relied: Davis v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 164 — Review of a superior court judgment on a small claims appeal is available by petition for extraordinary writ.
  • missed: Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 — A peremptory writ in the first instance may issue only after the parties receive notice that the court is considering that course and an opportunity to oppose; the court cited only older Court of Appeal cases and Code of Civil Procedure section 1088 without addressing this requirement.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result follows directly from the Government Code claims scheme, the County ordinance, and Jones v. Tracy School Dist., and the rejection of a fiduciary employment relationship is correct. The opinion is very brief, however, does not address Palma's notice requirement for a peremptory writ in the first instance, and offers no analysis of whether estoppel or the County's own clerical error could affect the claims bar.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — Work

Opinion

WORK, J.

Myron Klippert, a County of San Diego employee, was given an increase in his bonus June 21, 1985. Due to clerical error, it was not included in his pay until May 19, 1987. The county reimbursed Klippert for the year preceding discovery of the error (May 19, 1986-May 19, 1987) and disallowed the rest on the basis it was barred by San Diego County Administrative Code section 147. Klippert sued in small claims for the amount disallowed and got judgment. A trial de novo in superior court had the same result. The county brought a petition for writ of mandate and request for stay of execution. We declined to issue a stay but now grant the relief requested. 1

Government Code section 905 requires all claims for money or damages against local public entities be brought in accordance with the Tort Claims Act except “[cjlaims by public employees for fees, salaries ... or other expenses . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 905, subd. (c).) As to these excepted claims, the local public entity is to adopt appropriate rules and regulations (Gov. Code, § 935). The County of San Diego has adopted article X, “Claims Against the County,” into the San Diego County Administrative Code. *923 Section 145 et seq. covers the excepted money claims which are subject to time limitations set out in section 147. “A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented not later than the 100th day .... A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (San Diego County Admin. Code, § 147.) A cause of action for salary accrues at the time each periodic salary payment is made, triggering the running of a new limitations period. (Jones v. Tracy School Dist. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 99, 105-106 [165 Cal.Rptr, 100, 611 P.2d 441].) Payment here to Klippert for one year was proper.

The superior court in its trial de novo believed there was a fiduciary relationship between the county and its employees. This relationship, it believed, meant Klippert had no duty to inquire whether his compensation was correct and the cause of action would not “accrue” until the underpayment was discovered. However, this is an employment contract situation. There is no confidential or fiduciary relationship in this context. (See Lab. Code, §2750.)

An alternative writ or order to show cause would add nothing to the presentation. A peremptory writ is proper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 [169 Cal.Rptr. 827]; Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692, 697 [96 Cal.Rptr. 165].)

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to set aside its judgment after trial de novo on appeal from the small claims court and to enter judgment for petitioner. Execution on the judgment is stayed, or, if execution has been effected, real party is directed to reimburse petitioner.

Kremer, P. J., and Todd, J., concurred.

1

Although small claims appeals to superior court are final and not appealable (Code Civ. Proc., § 117.12; Eloby v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 972, 975-976 [144 Cal.Rptr. 597]), review by petition for writ is permissible (Davis v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 164, 168 [162 Cal.Rptr. 167]).

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by