Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV16289, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16289    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jennifer Santoro’s Petition for Relief from GC § 945.4

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

BACKGROUND

On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff Shane Jordan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Reem Bakir (“Reem”) and Abdul Bakir (“Abdul”) for negligence and negligent entrustment.

On June 21, 2022, Defendants filed a Petition for Leave to File Late Government Tort Claim to be heard on September 29, 2022. On September 15, 2022, Respondent Board of Trustees of the California State University (“CSU”) filed an opposition. On September 22, 2022, Defendants filed a reply.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request leave to commence a civil action against Respondents Board of Trustees of California State University, Northridge (“CSUN”) and Paul Wilson (“Wilson”).

CSU 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 underlying complaint arises out of an incident that occurred on May 3, 2019. Defendants were served with Plaintiff’s complaint on July 22, 2021. Defendants wish to file a Cross-Complaint against Respondents for indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. The application was filed on April 8, 2022, with the Cross-Complaint later being attached on April 11, 2022.

Under GC 911.4, a claim must be presented within six months (or a year, if late) of accrual of a cause of action. Under GC §901, claims based in indemnity, for the sake of government tort claims, accrue on the date Defendant is served with the complaint. The relevant causes of action accrued on July 22, 2021.

CSU argues that Defendants improperly filed the Cross-Complaint prior to filing the government claim, which is a fatal flaw that bars pursuing a claim. This is incorrect; the mere existence of a premature complaint or cross-complaint is not enough to completely bar an individual from pursuing litigation against a government entity.

However, in presenting an application for a late claim, Defendants must articulate why there was a delay in presenting the claim. Defendants argue that they Defendants’ attorney did not know that it was necessary to present a claim. Upon learning this information, Defendants filed the relevant late claim. Given that Defendants filed the late claim within the 1-year time period and did so after learning of the attorney’s mistake. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Reem Bakir and Abdul Bakir’s Petition for Relief from GC § 945.4 is GRANTED.

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.