C.A. Magistretti Company v. Merced Irrigation District

In C.A. Magistretti Company v. Merced Irrigation District (1972) 27 Cal. App. 3d 270, the Court of Appeal reviewed the exception SSF relies on and concluded: "While it is true that subdivision (b) of section 905 contains broad language, the exception articulated obviously pertains to a stop notice or to a notice of lien which lays the foundation for the lawsuit which is subsequently filed and which gives the public entity and its responsible officer or employee actual notice of the facts and theory upon which the lawsuit is predicated." (C.A. Magistretti Company v. Merced Irrigation District, supra, 27 Cal. App. 3d at page 275.) The plaintiff in that case, a subcontractor on a public works project, filed a "claim of lien" under former Code of Civil Procedure section 1192.1 against the public entity alleging the contractor had not paid the company for its work and requesting the entity "withhold sufficient moneys from payments due to the prime contractor to satisfy the claim. (C.A. Magistretti Company v. Merced Irrigation District, supra, 27 Cal. App. 3d at page 273.) The plaintiff later filed an action for negligence against members of the public entity's board of directors alleging the members failed to obtain a statutory labor and material bond. The appellate court found the plaintiff failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act because the claim of lien did not provide the defendants with notice of the facts and theory on which the lawsuit was based. (C.A. Magistretti Company v. Merced Irrigation District, supra, 27 Cal. App. 3d at pages 273, 275-276.)