Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV30602, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30602    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Jaime Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Plaintiff moves for an order permitting him to file a late claim against LACMTA pursuant to Government Code § 946.6.  LACMTA opposes the petition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Plaintiff provides that on March 20, 2022, his vehicle was rear-ended by a bus being driven by LACMTA’s employee.  On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a claim for damages to the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) instead of LACMTA.  Plaintiff provides that when his counsel searched, “LACMTA claim form” on Google, the second result was the County’s claim form, which Plaintiff’s counsel filled out and submitted via certified mail.  Plaintiff asserts that this claim form specifically mentions LACMTA, and that while the County received the claim on April 1, 2022, the Court never provided a response.  Plaintiff states that his counsel erroneously believed that the claim was filed against the correct entity, and after assuming that the claim was rejected, filed this action on September 20, 2022, against the City and LACMTA.  Plaintiff provides that his counsel was then informed on October 18, 2022, that Plaintiff filed this action without filing a government claim with LACMTA.  Plaintiff’s counsel then realized that the claim was incorrectly filed with the County instead of LACMTA, and on that same day Plaintiff submitted an application to file a claim with LACMTA.  Plaintiff provides that LACMTA failed to respond to the application to submit a late claim within 45 days, and so the application was deemed rejected on December 2, 2022. 

Plaintiff argues that the failure to file a timely government tort claim was reasonable and excusable due to mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect, and that LACMTA was not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to file a claim because LACMTA had notice of the subject incident.  Plaintiff further assets that his counsel was diligent in filing the initial claim, filing the application to file a late claim with LACMTA upon realizing counsel’s error, and in filing this lawsuit. 

            In opposition, LACMTA argues that Plaintif did not timely present a claim for damages to it, and that Plaintiff does not provide facts evidencing mistake inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, nor the required diligence regarding Plaintiffs failure to present a timely claim for damages to LACMTA.  LACMTA asserts that Plaintiff knew at all times that LACMTA was the correct entity to file a claim with, so Plaintiff’s counsel’s error is not excusable.  Additionally, LACMTA argues that Plaintiff is improperly seeking relief in connection with a pending action. 

            In reply, Plaintiff contends that he erroneously believed that he filed the government claim with the proper entity, and Plaintiff’s counsel only became aware of the error after this action was filed.  Plaintiff argues that LACMTA will not be prejudiced if this petition is granted and asserts that his mistake is excusable. 

2. Relief from Failure to File Timely Claim

Pursuant to Government Code section 945.4:

Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.

A tort claim for money damages against a public entity must be filed with the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)  “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 as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)   

            “When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.4(a).)  “The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.4(b).)  “The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.  “If the board fails or refuses to act on an application within the time prescribed by this section, the application shall be deemed to have been denied on the 45th day or, if the period within which the board is required to act is extended by agreement pursuant to this section, the last day of the period specified in the agreement.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.6(c).)

If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4. The proper court for filing the petition is a superior court that would be a proper court for the trial of an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates. If the petition is filed in a court which is not a proper court for the determination of the matter, the court, on motion of any party, shall transfer the proceeding to a proper court. If an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates would be a limited civil case, a proceeding pursuant to this section is a limited civil case.

(Gov. Code, § 946.6(a).)  “The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.”  (Gov. Code, § 946.6(b).) 

An order granting §946.6 relief completely excuses the plaintiff from filing any claim at all, allowing suit to be filed within 30 days.  (Viles v. State of Calif. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 27; Ard v. County of Contra Costa (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 339, 343.)    

            Here, Plaintiff admits that it filed this action against LACMTA prior to obtaining relief from the claims filing requirements against LACMTA.  It is improper for Plaintiff to seek relief in connection with a pending action because proper claim filing, or obtaining relief from claim filing requirements, is a prerequisite to suit against a public entity.  (Gov. Code § 946.6.)  “Section 946.6 contemplates a petition for relief in a separate civil proceeding, not a motion in an action which has already been filed …”  (Luers v. Smith (C.D. Cal. 1996) 941 F.Supp. 105, 107-08; see also Cal. Prac. Guide: Personal Injury Ch. 5-A § 5:62.1; accord. Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374 [“The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof …”].)  Notably, Government Code §946.6(f) provides, “If the court makes an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4, suit on the cause of action to which the claim relates shall be filed with the court within 30 days thereafter.” 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s petition is denied.  The ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to file a petition as a separate action, in which Plaintiff provides all evidence upon which Plaintiff relies in seeking relief.[1]  Any such petition will be reviewed to determine whether Plaintiff not only made a mistake, but whether that mistake was reasonable under the circumstances.  (See, e.g., Spencer v. Merced County Office of Education (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1438-39 [relief not warranted where claim was filed with wrong entity and claim had been given name of correct entity at the time injury occurred].)

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 31^st day of January 2023