Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 20STCV29325 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV29325, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29325 Hearing Date: October 19, 2022 Dept: 28

Plaintiff Margaltha Sharp’s Petition for Relief from GC § 945.4

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

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff Margaltha Sharp (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“County”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants The Judicial Council of California (“Council”) and ABM Industry Groups, LLC (“ABM”).

On October 6, 2020, County filed an answer. On April 25, 2022, ABM filed an answer.

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Leave to File Late Government Tort Claim to be heard on October 19, 2022. On October 6, 2022, Council filed an opposition. On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for June 5, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests leave to present a claim to the Council due to counsel’s mistake, inadvertence and excusable negligent.

Council requests 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

Plaintiff’s complaint arises out of an incident that occurred on December 3, 2019. On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a claim to the County. On February 10, 2022, the County informed Plaintiff’s claim had been rejected by “operation of law,” and that the County was not negligent. On April 1, 2021, County requested Plaintiff dismiss her complaint because the subject location is not owned by the County, but rather by Council. In response to discovery, the County produced an agreement that stated the County maintained responsibility for management of the common areas of the subject location, including where Plaintiff injured herself. On January 14, 2022, the County submitted evidence indicating that the Judicial Council is the entity it deems responsible for Plaintiff's loss.

Under GC 911.4, a claim must be presented within six months (or a year, if late) of accrual of a cause of action. Plaintiff did not submit a claim against Council within the requisite time,

In order to seek relief from said requirements, Plaintiff must seek leave by submitting a petition that shows 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.

Plaintiff’s application does not indicate that an application to file suit against Council was ever made and subsequently denied. Additionally, the Court agrees with Council that there is no evidence of excusable neglect—a plaintiff is obligated to conduct due diligence in identifying the proper parties in litigation. Even assuming that the County informed Plaintiff who the responsible entity was as soon as it informed Plaintiff that it was not responsible, Plaintiff’s claim would have already been tardy. The subject incident occurred on December 3, 2019—the County first informed Plaintiff of the potential other party in 2021, and Plaintiff only served discovery on the County in 2021. Plaintiff failed to take proper steps to identify the relevant parties and does not comply with the requirements for relief. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Margaltha Sharp’s Petition for Relief from GC § 945.4 is DENIED.

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.