Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP04102, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04102    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 86

PETITION FOR ORDER PERMITTING LATE CLAIM AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENTITY

Date:               4/16/24 (1:30 PM)

Case:               Angela Taylor v. LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (23STCP04102)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Angela Taylor’s Petition for Order Permitting a Late Claim Against a Governmental Entity is DENIED.

Respondent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(h).)

On October 15, 2022, near Crenshaw Boulevard and W. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, petitioner Angela Taylor alleges she tripped on exposed wires and fell at the Taste of Soul Festival, causing her to sustain injuries. (Green Decl. Ex. 1 [Claim for Damages].) According to petitioner’s counsel, she learned that the property where petitioner tripped may be owned and maintained by respondent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. (Green Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)

To bring a suit for damages against a public entity such as respondent, petitioner was first required by Government Code § 945.4 to make a written claim with the public entity.  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 at most until April 17, 2023 (six months after the October 15, 2022 claimed date of injury) to present her claim to respondent. (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 August 30, 2023, petitioner submitted a written application to respondent for leave to present a late claim. (CCP §§ 911.4, 911.6; Green Decl. Ex. 2.) Petitioner asserts that respondent has not responded to the application. (Petition at 2:24-27.) Respondent does not dispute the assertion. (See Sheppard Decl. ¶ 2.) Accordingly, the application is deemed to have been denied on Monday, October 16, 2023. (Gov. Code § 911.6(c) [“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….”]; CCP § 12a(a) [deadline falling on Saturday moved to next day that is not a holiday, i.e., Monday].)

Petitioner files the instant petition seeking relief under Government Code § 946.6 to present a late claim. The instant petition was filed on November 7, 2023, within six months of October 16, 2023, which renders it timely in accordance with Government Code § 946.6(b).

To obtain relief here, petitioner must 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 appears to have been diligent in hiring counsel.  Petitioner hired counsel two days after the subject incident. (Green Decl. ¶ 2.)

Petitioner’s counsel, however, does not demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the available claims against respondent. “[A] late claimant who seeks relief under section 946.6 may be barred by inexcusable delay by counsel.” (Hasty v. County of Los Angeles (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 623, 626, citing Black v. County of Los Angeles (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 670, 674-77.) Here, counsel was notified of Taste of Soul’s insurance carrier on November 8, 2022, approximately five months before the April 17, 2023 deadline to file a government claim. (Green Decl. ¶ 4.) Petitioner’s counsel inexplicably did not serve a demand on the insurance carrier until August 15, 2023, after the deadline had passed. (Green Decl. ¶ 5.) Petitioner’s application fails to provide any explanation for why counsel delayed until after April 17, 2023 to serve the demand.  This was not reasonable diligence. 

Indeed, the lack of reasonable diligence is highlighted by the fact that the insurance carrier responded by letter within days (August 24, 2023) and provided the information that the property in question was owned and maintained by respondent, a governmental entity.  If counsel had served the demand shortly after notification of the identity of Taste of Souls’ insurance carrier, instead of delaying for nine months, it would appear petitioner could have received a response earlier and timely served the government claim.

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner 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.