Approximately five years after the Supreme Court decided Phillips, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, decided Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524 (Schaefer Dixon), on which the District relies. In that case, the Court of Appeal concluded that a letter sent by the plaintiff was not a claim within the meaning of the Government Claims Act.

(4) Those that are not sufficiently identifiable as claims at all and thus impose no requirement on the part of the public entity to comply with the notice and defense-waiver statutes. (E.g., Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27, 30 (Dilts) [series of letters between attorneys did not constitute a claim]; Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524, 536-537 (Schaefer Dixon) [letters between contractor and flood control district did not constitute a claim].) The great gulf in these categories is between (3) and (4).

(1) Under the act, with certain exceptions not applicable here, no suit for "money or damages" may be brought against a public entity until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and either has been acted upon or is deemed to have been rejected. (Gov. Code, §§ 905, 945.4.) Authority is split on the question of whether an action on a contract, such as that asserted by Alliance, is an action "for `money or damages'" within the purview of the claims presentation requirements of the act. (Compare Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1079 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 576] and Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 698] with Harris v. State Personnel Bd. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 639, 643 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 274] (overruled on other grounds in Coleman v. Department of Personnel Administration (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1102, 1123, fn. 8 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 346, 805 P.2d 300]) and National Automobile Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pitchess (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 62, 64-65 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 649].) We align ourselves with those cases finding that actions on a contract are indeed actions for "money or damages" under the act.

(Id. at p. 201.) Similarly, in Schaefer Dixon Assocs. v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Auth. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524, 534 (Schaefer), the court held that a contractor’s correspondence with the public agency’s general manager did not constitute a claim because it “was not ‘presented’ as required to the proper person, but rather was directed to the personal attention of the general manager for purposes of ‘enlisting your help in resolving’ the payment issue.” Similarly, here, appellants’ letter was directed to the personal attention of the CIO of respondent, for the purpose of “com[ing] together to avoid conflict and to ameliorate the harsh economic result imposed on Dr. Shih.”

In view of these provisions, it is no surprise that courts have routinely applied the claim requirements to contract causes of action against local government defendants. See, e.g., Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation DistrictEmployee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493-1494 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 587]; Baines Pickwick, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 303-304; Alliance Financial v. City and County ofSan Francisco (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 635, 641 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 341]; Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524, 530-531 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 698]; Ocean ServicesCorp. v. Ventura Port Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1762, 1775 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 750]; Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27, 31 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 612]; Loehr v. Ventura CountyCommunity College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1079 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 576]; Baillargeon v. Department of Water Power (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 670, 681-682 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 338]; Voth v. Wasco PublicUtil. Dist. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 353, 356 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 608]; Stromberg, Inc. v. L. A. County Flood etc. Dist. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 759, 760, 762 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 183]; Pacific Gas andElec.

This is true even if the attorney fee award is not challenged in the appeal. For example, in Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], we noted: "The [appellant]'s notice of appeal stated it appealed also from the award of attorney fees in favor of the [respondent]. The [respondent] asserts that, because no argument was directed expressly to the issue of attorney fees, the [appellant] has abandoned that issue.

This is true even if the attorney fee award is not challenged in the appeal. For example, in Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], we noted: "The [appellant]s notice of appeal stated it appealed also from the award of attorney fees in favor of the [respondent]. The [respondent] asserts that, because no argument was directed expressly to the issue of attorney fees, the [appellant] has abandoned that issue.

( Westcon, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 202.) A claim as presented constitutes a written communication "'that a claim for monetary damages exists and that litigation may ensue. . . .'" ( Ibid., quoting Alliance Financial v. City and County of San Francisco (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 635, 643-644 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 341]; see also Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 699, 710 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 119, 780 P.2d 349] ["provided the existence of a claim for monetary damages is definitely disclosed by the document [asserted to be a claim as presented], that burden upon the public entity is precisely the intended effect of the statutory notice and defense-waiver provisions"]; Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524, 533-534 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 698] [letter from contractor providing information and requesting negotiation of an ongoing dispute without advising of imminent litigation was not a claim under the Government Tort Claims Act].) Here, the undisputed facts reveal that any potential legal claims Richart may have possessed against District or individual trustees led up to and were connected with the decision to end her contract and negotiate a settlement.

(Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27, 35-36.) In Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524, 536-537 (Schaefer), the appellate court found that these policy considerations applied as well when a series of letters is offered to establish that a defective claim was submitted. We agree with that analysis.

1. Standard of review. The appellate court reviews a summary judgment independently. (Schaefer Dixon Associates v. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 524, 531.) When summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendants, the court must determine whether the defendants either negated a necessary element of the plaintiff’s cause of action or established a complete defense to that cause of action.