Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP03748, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03748    Hearing Date: June 4, 2024    Dept: 86

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM REQUIREMENT TO PRESENT GOVERNMENT CLAIM

Date:               6/4/24 (1:30 PM) 

Case:                           Amelia Isabel Camacho De Lopez v. City of Los Angeles et al. (23STCP03748) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Amelia Isabel Camacho de Lopez’s Petition for Relief From Requirement to Present Government Claim Under Government Code § 946.6 is DENIED.

On October 11, 2022, petitioner was allegedly injured due to a fall on a purportedly unsteady jet bridge at Los Angeles International Airport. (Pet. Ex. A.) A claim relating to a cause of action for personal injury must be presented to the public entity no later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.¿ (Gov. Code § 911.2; Munoz v. State of California¿(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776.)¿Accordingly, petitioner had until April 11, 2023 to present a claim to City of Los Angeles (“City”). (See Jiminez v. Chavez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 50, 58 [six-month limitations period is the longer of six calendar months or 182 days].)

On April 6, 2023 – five days prior to the six-month deadline to file a claim – petitioner mailed the claim to the City of Los Angeles Clerk at 200 North Main Street, Room 615, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Pet. Ex. A.) The City received the claim on April 10, 2023. (Pet. Ex. B.) However, on April 20, 2023, the City returned the claim to petitioner because it was mailed to the wrong address. The City informed petitioner that claims should be mailed to City Clerk Office Room 395, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Pet. Ex. C.) Petitioner subsequently filed her claim online on May 2, 2023, but it was returned as not having been presented within six months of the incident. (Pet. Ex. D.)

Petitioner files this petition seeking relief from having to file a government claim against the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports pursuant to Government Code § 946.6.

Petitioner is required to demonstrate that the failure to present a claim under Government Code § 945.4 was “through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect….” (Gov. Code § 946.6(c)(1).) “The mere recital of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is not sufficient to warrant relief…. There must be more than the mere failure to discover a fact; the party seeking relief must establish the failure to discover the fact in the exercise of reasonable diligence.” (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293.) “The party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim [citation] and must establish the necessary elements justifying relief by the preponderance of the evidence.” (Ibid.)

“In deciding whether counsel’s error is excusable, the reviewing court looks to the nature of the mistake or neglect and whether counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim. When examining the mistake or neglect, the court inquires whether a reasonably prudent person might have made the same error under the same or similar circumstances.” (Munoz, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1782-83.)

Petitioner argues that her counsel mailed the claim against the City of Los Angeles to the address indicated on the Claim for Damages form. (Pet. at 2:7-9.) However, the form that counsel used was a prior version that was last revised in March 1999. (Pet. Ex. A [upper-right corner of Claim for Damages form states “Rev. 3/99”].) The form was since revised in December 2018. (See Los Angeles City Attorney Claims site at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E0shfxXpcgxeOWocilRgR610PZp6fc-q/view.) The current form indicates that “[c]laims can be filed online at https://claims.lacity.org/, in person or mailed to: CITY CLERK, 200 NORTH SPRING STREET, ROOM 395, CITY HALL, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012.” Petitioner offers no explanation as to why an outdated claim form was used.

Further, “[a] petitioner or counsel for a petitioner must show more than the mere failure to discover a fact until too late; he or she must establish the failure to discover that fact in the use of reasonable diligence.” (Munoz, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1783.) The claim was mailed to the incorrect address on Main Street, Room 615 on April 6, 2023, nearly six months after the incident on October 11, 2022. (Pet. Ex. A.) Petitioner fails to explain why she and/or her counsel delayed in presenting petitioner’s claim until just a few days before the deadline to file the claim. Petitioner consequently does not demonstrate the diligence necessary to obtain relief under Government Code § 946.6.

While there is a “general policy favoring trial on the merits,” it “cannot be applied indiscriminately so as to render ineffective the statutory time limits.” (Department of Water, 82 Cal.App.4th at 1293.)

The petition is DENIED.