Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV29241, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29241    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Daniel Luna and Irena Sulencka’s Petition for Relief from GC § 945.4

Having considered the moving, opposing, reply and supplemental papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiffs Daniel Luna (“Luna”) and Irena Sulencka (“Sulencka”) filed this action against Defendants The Los Angeles Rams (“Rams”), Hollywood Park Management Co. II, LLC (“HPMC II”), KSE Sportsman Media, Inc. (“KSE”), Stockbridge Capital Group, LLC (“SCG”), Apex Security Group, Inc. (“Apex”) and Bryan Alexis Cifuentes (“Cifuentes”) for negligence, premises liability, assault, battery and loss of consortium. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, LLC (“Kroenke”), Stadco LA, LLC (“Stadco”) and Hollywood Park Management Company, LLC (“HPMC”).

On January 13, 2023, the Court dismissed KSE, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On January 17, 2023, the Rams filed an answer. On March 6, 2023, HPMC and Stadco filed an answer. On March 29, 2023, the Court dismissed HPMC II, Kroenke and SCG, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Relief from GC § 945.4 to be heard on February 23, 2023. On March 23, 2023, the City of Inglewood (“City”) and the County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed oppositions. On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

The Court continued the hearing on the motion to April 20, 2023. On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 7, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request the Court grants relief from the requirements of the claims act to allow them to proceed with the filing of a lawsuit.

The City and the County request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Cal. Gov. Code § 946.6 “(a) 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.

(b) The petition shall show each of the following:(1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2.(3) The information required by Section 910. 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.

(c) The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable:(1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.(2) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.(3) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor during any of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim, provided the application is presented within six months of the person turning 18 years of age or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.(4) The person

who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time.(5) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during any of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time, provided the application is presented within six months of the person no longer being physically or mentally incapacitated, or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.(6) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.”

DISCUSSION

This action arises from an incident that occurred on January 30, 2022. Luna was in a coma from January 30, 2022, to mid-February; he was unable to “think straight, carry a conversation or consider the event that led to the injury,” until approximately March 2022. Plaintiffs submitted an application for leave to present late claims to both the City of Inglewood (“City) and the Los Angeles Sherrif’s Department (“LASD”) on August 19, 2022. The City denied the application on September 8, 2022. The County, on behalf of LASD, denied the application on November 17, 2022.

Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to relief under GC § 946.6(c)(5), arguing that Luna was physical and mentally incapacitated during the claim presentation period. GC § 946.6(c)(5) provides that the Court shall relieve a petitioner if the petitioner was incapacitated during any of the time to file the claim (6 months from the date of the incident) and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during the time, and the petitioner filed the claim within 6 months of being relieved from that disability. While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s incapacity prevented him from filing a claim during the period of time in which he was comatose and “unable to think straight,” Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to why Plaintiffs were unable to file a claim during the rest of the time period; the plain language of the statute states “that time...” which the Court interprets as to include the entire initial 6-month period. Plaintiffs retained counsel by March, putting them into a proper position to file a timely claim by July. Plaintiffs argue that this delay was due to inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, but have provided no information as to why this extended through the entire 6-month period or what this even consisted of beyond Luna’s injuries.

In Plaintiffs’ reply, Plaintiffs state that the intent of the GC § 946.6(c)(5) is to allow a claimant to file a claim within 6 months of no longer being incapacitated, or a year after the claim accrued, whichever occurs first. Plaintiffs cite to “Exhibit 1,” as the Senate minutes in support of this, but failed to attach said exhibit. The Court continued the motion and ordered Plaintiffs to provide a supplemental declaration with the relevant exhibit.

Although the text of the bill is potentially unclear, the commentary of the minutes is not. “In order to avoid potentially unjust situations, for example if the person was a minor during all but one day of the period in which to a timely claim must be filed, this bill provides that where a person is a minor or incapacitated during any of the six-month period, the person's application to file an untimely claim must be granted if it is presented within six months of the person no longer being a minor or incapacitated, or within one year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.” A specific example is given listing someone who only spent 3 months as a minor during the applicable time period, granting an additional extension of 3 months (making it 6 months from the age of majority). That is close to the facts in this case, in which Plaintiff was incapacitated for approximately 2 months, but otherwise was ‘able’ to file such a claim. There is no discussion as to what may indicate whether a party was or was not able to file such a claim beyond whether or not they were incapacitated for an amount of time during the statutory period. Based on this exhibit, the Court grants the requested relief.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Daniel Luna and Irena Sulencka’s Petition for Relief from GC § 945.4 is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.