Judge Carolyn M. Caietti, Case Number: 37-2023-00050097-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00050097-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024 10:30:00 AM C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00050097-CU-PO-CTL DUNNE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 11/20/2023

Petitioner Karen Dunn's Petition for Order to Allow Late Claim Presentation Against Public Entity is DENIED.

Courts may relieve a plaintiff from the claim presentation requirements if: (1) the late claim application was made within a reasonable time, not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action; (2) the petition was made within six months after the application has been denied; and (3) one or more circumstances apply, as specified in Government Code section 946.6(c). (Gov. Code, � 946.6.) One of the circumstances is that the failure to timely present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim. (Id., subd. (c)(1).) The statute is to be liberally construed in favor of relief. (Viles v. State (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 32-33.) When relief is sought based on mistake, because of the reasonably prudent person standard 'it is not every mistake that will excuse a default, the determining factor being the reasonableness of the misconception.' (Shank v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 152, 157.) When a mistake is claimed, '[t]he party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he [or she] was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim ....' (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1294.) 'The mere recital of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is not sufficient to warrant relief. Relief on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is available only on a showing that the claimant's failure to timely present a claim was reasonable when tested by the objective 'reasonably prudent person' standard.' (Id., at 1293).

Petitioner's counsel is claiming timely compliance with filing a claim with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ('Airport Authority') within the initial six month statutory notice period, and failure to provide a timely denial; while concurrently seeking this application to file a late claim based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect. A Petitioner who seeks late claim relief cannot concurrently argue substantial compliance with the claim-filing requirements. (Toscano v. County of Los Angeles (1979) 92 Cal. App. 3d, 775, 782.) Here, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence she is entitled to relief pursuant to section 946.6c).. In particular, unlike the mistake made by the attorney in Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 281, the Court finds the alleged mistake regarding the identity of the public entity in control of the San Diego International Airport ('Airport') was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances, is contradicted by Petitioner's own evidence, and Petitioner's counsel did not act diligently in investigating and pursuing the claim.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054229 60 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: DUNNE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY 37-2023-00050097-CU-PO-CTL Here Petitioner submitted evidence her counsel presented a tort claim to the City of San Diego ('City') on January 24, 2023 ('City Claim'). (Monzon Decl., Ex. 2.) The City Claim states it 'is being submitted in the event that San Diego in anway [sic] owns, operates, or maintains the San Diego International Airport.' From this, the Court infers Petitioner's counsel was aware the City was not the owner or operator of the Airport, suggesting some other entity was likely responsible.

On that same day, January 24, 2023, Petitioner's counsel sent a letter of representation ('Letter') to the Airport Authority demonstrating Petitioner's counsel was at minimum aware of the Airport Authority and a connection to the claim. (Monzon Decl., Ex. 1.) However, no claim was submitted to the Airport Authority at that time and in fact a claim was not submitted until April 2023.

Petitioner's application for leave to present a late claim contains a declaration by Suzette Garcia claiming that on January 24, 2023, at the direction of the handling attorney, she mailed a notice of claim letter in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code � 911.2. (Monzon Decl., Ex. 3.) This declaration is directly contradicted by Ms. Garcia's own declaration submitted in support of the current petition, which now merely claims to have mailed a letter of representation to the SD Airport on that date. (Garcia Decl.

(ROA #15, � 3, Monzon Decl., Ex. 1.) Importantly, Petitioner's counsel's mistake does not appear objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Petitioner counsel was retained within a month of the Incident but did not attempt to present a claim until days before the six-month deadline expired. (Monzon Decl., Ex. 1 [establishes as of August 12, 2022, Sargent Law Firm was retained].)) Petitioner's counsel does not provide any information regarding what, if any, investigation was conducted in order to identify the correct public entity during that six-month time frame. Further, Petitioner's counsel's justification for their five and half month delay in bringing the current petition after the denial of their late filed claim lacks merit. (See Monzon Decl., �� 2-3.) Petitioner's own evidence demonstrates her counsel were aware of the proper entity at the time but failed to present a timely claim. Further, the Airport Authority has presented evidence that even a cursory investigation would have revealed it was the operator of the airport. (See https://www.san.org/Airport-Authority/About-the-Authority.) Since Petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the Airport Authority was not required to demonstrate prejudice arising from Petitioner's failure to timely present a claim.

Department of Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at 1297.) Nonetheless, the Court finds that the evidence demonstrates the Airport Authority would be prejudiced because the Letter submitted by the Petitioner did not give the Airport Authority notice or an opportunity to timely investigate the claim.

For these reasons, the petition is DENIED.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054229 60