Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP03749, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP03749 Hearing Date: August 15, 2024 Dept: 86
PETITION FOR RELIEF
FROM GOVERNMENT CODE § 945.4
Date: 8/13/24
(1:30 PM)
Case: Bridget Blaney v. County of
Los Angeles et al. (23STCP03749)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner Bridget Blaney’s Petition for Relief from Government
Code § 945.4 is DENIED.
On November 26, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Covina, petitioner
Bridget Blaney suffered injuries when shot by a deputy sheriff employed by the
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. (McMurray Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 1.) 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 May 27, 2023 to present a claim to respondent County of
Los Angeles (“County”). (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].)
It is undisputed that petitioner did not file a claim with
or seek permission to file a late claim from respondents until June 12, 2023,
that petitioner presented an application to file a late claim to the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors on August 3, 2023, and that the application
was purportedly denied on August 4, 2023. (Pet. at 2:25-3:2, 5:3-9; Opp. at 3:12-15.)
Petitioner files this petition seeking relief under
Government Code § 946.6 to present a late claim. The instant
petition was filed on October 11, 2023, within six months of August 4, 2023,
pursuant to Government Code § 946.6(b).
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.)
Petitioner contends that her counsel’s paralegal and
associate failed to calendar the 6-month due date to serve the government
claim. (McMurray Decl. ¶¶ 35, 36, 45, 46.)
Counsel provides no further detail or explanation for the purported
mis-calendaring. As or his own role, counsel
avers that he “accidentally, inadvertently, and mistakenly neglected to ensure
that the matter was calendared, and the Government Claim was timely served.”
(McMurray Decl. ¶ 47.)
“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.) Counsel’s averments are insufficient to
establish reasonable diligence. Other
than a conclusory assertion of purported mis-calendaring by a paralegal and
associate, counsel provides an inadequate basis for this Court to conclude any
reasonable diligence was exercised with regard to meeting the deadline for
making a claim. Indeed, counsel provides
no explanation regarding what efforts he made to ensure that the paralegal and
associate calendared the 6-month deadline or how he otherwise diligently acted
with respect to ensure a claim was timely made. Counsel merely avers that he
assumed the paralegal “had filed the previously drafted Claim for damages or
had at least calendared with [sic] the deadline to serve” (McMurray Decl. ¶ 35)
without providing any basis to conclude such an assumption was reasonable or
prudent.
Counsel also avers that he has been attempting to obtain
information regarding the subject shooting since December 5, 2022, pursuant to
a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request but that no documents or
information have been produced in response. (McMurray Decl. ¶¶ 21, 38.) On
March 1, 2023, petitioner filed a separate petition for writ of mandate to
obtain the requested information. (McMurray Decl. ¶ 33.) Given that petitioner
seeks leave to file a late claim without ever having received the requested
information, it is not clear why petitioner could not have timely filed a claim
in the first instance without the information petitioner still seeks. More to the point, while counsel may not have
all the information he would like to fully prosecute his claim, it is hard to
see how petitioner lacked sufficient information to make a timely claim as
required. Notably, counsel admits at the
very least that he has known the information about the November 26, 2022
shooting posted on the Sheriff’s website and attaches what appears to be a copy
of that posting, which is dated November 26, 2022. (McMurray Decl. ¶ 11 &
Ex. 6.) That posting includes ample details
about the shooting, including, among other things: (1) the date [November 26,
2022]; (2) the time [10:03 AM]; (3) the location [North Vincent Avenue and East
Edna Place]; (4) the involvement of county employees [deputies assigned to San
Dimas Sheriff’s Station]; (5) petitioner’s identity [25-year-old Bridget Blaney];
(6) what happened [a deputy-involved shooting[; (7) resulting injury to petitioner
[Blaney sustained gunshot wounds to her torso]; and (8) the name of the deputy
who fired [Ernesto Valencia]. ((McMurray
Decl. ¶¶ 11-16 & Ex. 6.)
Petitioner also contends that Government Code § 945.3
prevented her from bringing a claim because she currently has criminal charges
pending arising from the subject incident where she was shot. (McMurray Decl. ¶
52.) However, Government Code § 945.3 pertains to the filing of civil actions,
not presentation of claims under Government Code § 945.4.
Lastly, petitioner argues that she was physically
incapacitated after the subject shooting and was unable to communicate.
(McMurray Decl. ¶ 50.) While relief from Government Code § 945.4 could be
obtained if the claim was not timely filed due to physical incapacity (see Gov.
Code § 946.6(c)(5)), petitioner fails to demonstrate entitlement to such
relief. Petitioner’s counsel contacted
respondent County on December 5, 2022, less than 10 days after the shooting, to
inform the County that his firm represented petitioner and to demand the
preservation of evidence. (McMurray Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 1.) Petitioner does not
explain how her inability to communicate prevented her counsel from timely
filing a government claim as well.
Indeed, petitioner’s ability to retain counsel shortly in the heels of
the shooting suggests that physical incapacity was not an impediment to making
a timely government claim.
In sum, there is insufficient explanation why petitioner
delayed in presenting her claim until after the presentation period set forth
in Government Code § 911.2. 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.