Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP02075, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02075    Hearing Date: October 22, 2024    Dept: 86

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM LATE CLAIM

Date:               10/22/24 (1:30 PM)

Case:               Bella Donna Medrano v. County of Los Angeles (24STCP02075)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Bella Donna Medrano’s Petition for Relief from Government Code § 945.4 is DENIED.

On April 13, 2023, on the 101 freeway, petitioner was rear-ended by a vehicle that he been rear-ended by another vehicle bearing a “CA EXEMPT” license plate and a government seal related to Los Angeles. (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 4.) Petitioner sustained injuries. (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. A [Demand for Bodily Injury Claim].) Petitioner filed a claim with the City of Los Angeles (“City”). (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. A.) After the deadline to file a government tort claim had passed, petitioner discovered that the government vehicle involved in the collision belonged to respondent County of Los Angeles (“County”). (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. D.)

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 October 13, 2023—the longer of six calendar months or 182 days—to present a claim to respondent County of Los Angeles (“County”). (Gov. Code § 911.2; Munoz, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1776; see also 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 February 26, 2024, petitioner submitted a written application to respondent County for leave to present a late claim. (CCP §§ 911.4, 911.6; Whittemore Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. E.) Respondent denied the application on March 11, 2024. (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. F.) Petitioner files this petition seeking relief under Government Code § 946.6 to present a late claim.

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 hired counsel at most eight days after the subject incident. (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 5.) Petitioner appears to have been diligent in hiring counsel. Regardless of whether petitioner was diligent in retaining counsel after her fall, however, petitioner does not demonstrate that counsel was reasonably diligent 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, petitioner’s counsel opened a claim with respect to damage to petitioner’s car on April 21, 2023, more than five months before the October 13, 2023 deadline to file a government claim. (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 5.) However, petitioner did not serve a government claim on the City until October 11, 2023, two days before the deadline to file a government tort claim. (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. A.) Petitioner provides no explanation as to why counsel delayed until October 11, 2023 to serve the government claim. Notably, on this record, it appears petitioner only learned about the potential claim against respondent County through the City’s response to the February 16, 2024 settlement demand petitioner made to the City. (Whittemore Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8 & Exs. B-D.) Had petitioner served a government claim upon the City earlier—instead of delaying five months to do so—petitioner might have discovered the County’s potential liability in time to serve a timely government claim by October 13, 2023.  In any event, petitioner fails to provide any meaningful explanation as to why petitioner’s counsel was unable to discover on its own with the exercise of due diligence the County’s potential involvement in the collision, as opposed to relying upon the City.

Petitioner contends that her counsel’s mistake regarding the proper entity against whom to make a claim was reasonable because the vehicle that hit her bore a seal related to Los Angeles. (Whittemore Decl. ¶ 4.) In Reply, counsel also avers that at the time of filing of the claim with the City, he was litigating cases against cities and was not as attuned to the distinction between the City and County as he is now. (Whittemore Reply Decl. ¶¶ 14, 15; compare Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276 [finding that counsel’s mistaken claim against state agency, instead of community college district, was reasonable because community college is overseen by state governing body].) Counsel’s averments do not explain why counsel waited until the eve of the government claim deadline to file a claim. (Compare Bettencourt, 42 Cal.3d at 274, 278 [counsel filed government claim four days after having been retained].) Nor do such averments demonstrate that petitioner’s counsel made any meaningful effort to confirm or verify what government entity might be involved in the collision.

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.