Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV07824, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV07824 Hearing Date: March 17, 2023 Dept: 28
Petition for Order Permitting a Late Claim Against a Governmental
Entity Pursuant to Government Code Section 946.6
Having considered the moving papers, opposition,
and reply, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff Vicenta Christensen alleges
that she slipped and fell at Fenix Marine Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles.
Plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit on March 3, 2022, alleging negligence
and premises liability against Defendant Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. (“Eagle
Marine”) Plaintiff subsequently filed a First and Second Amended Complaint, the
latter of which is the current operative pleading. Plaintiff filed the Second
Amended Complaint (“SAC” on November 10, 2022, adding Defendant City of Los
Angeles (“Defendant”) as a party to the action and adding a cause of action for
dangerous condition of public property against Defendant.
Plaintiff filed the instant petition on February 24, 2023.
Defendant has opposed the petition and Plaintiff has replied.
Trial is set for August 31, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff seeks
permission from the court to file a late claim against Defendant under
Government Code section 946.6.
Defendant
requests that the Court deny the petition.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court notes that Plaintiff has requested
the Court take judicial notice of various executive orders signed by Governor
Newsom in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Conlogue Decl., Ex. 4, 5, 6, 7.) Although
this was requested in Plaintiff’s reply, the Court notes that it is in response
to issues Defendant raised in its opposition. (D.
[§ 6.15] Reply Papers:, Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Before Trial § 6.15
[“The purpose of declarations and other evidence submitted with the reply is to
fill in the gaps in the evidence created by the other party's opposition
papers. Jay v Mahaffey
(2013) 218 CA4th 1522, 1537–1538”].) Therefore, the Court grants this request.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Before a suit for damages
may be filed against a public entity, a claimant must present a timely written
claim to the public entity and the claim must have been acted upon by the board
or deemed rejected. (Gov. Code § 945.4; Munoz v. State of Cal.
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777.) A claim relating to a cause of action
for injury to person or personal property must be presented to the public
entity not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of
action. (Gov. Code § 911.2; Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1777.)
If a claimant fails to
present a claim within the statutory period, he may apply “within a reasonable
time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action” to the
public entity for leave to present a late claim. (Gov. Code §
911.4.) If the public entity denies leave to present a late claim, a
claimant may petition the Court under Government Code section 946.6 for relief
from the requirements of Government Code section 945.4. (Munoz,
supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1777.)
A petition pursuant to
Government Code section 946.6 must be “filed within six months after the
application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section
911.6.” (Gov. Code § 946.6(b); see also City of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 621, 627.) This requirement is
mandatory. (Lineaweaver v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1983) 139
Cal.App.3d 738, 741.)
If the Government Code
section 946.6 petition is timely filed, the court may relieve a claimant from
the requirements of section 945.4 if it makes certain findings, including: (1)
the claimant made a timely application to the public entity for leave to
present a late claim; (2) the application was denied; and (3) the failure to
timely present a claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect; and/or that the injured person was a minor during the claim period, or
incapacitated during the claim period, or deceased prior to the deadline for
filing a claim. (Gov. Code section 946.6(c).) In determining
whether relief is warranted under Government Code section 946.6, the court
considers the petition, any affidavits submitted in support of or in opposition
to the petition, and any other evidence presented at the hearing. (Gov.
Code § 946.6(e); Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778.)
“Government Code section
946.6 is a remedial statute intended to provide relief from technical rules
which otherwise provide a trap for the unwary. The remedial policy underlying
the statute is that wherever possible cases should be heard on their merits.
Thus, a denial of such relief by the trial court is examined more rigorously
than where relief is granted and any doubts which may exist should be resolved
in favor of the application.” (Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1778 [citations omitted].) Because of the remedial character of the
statute, “the modern trend of judicial decisions favors granting relief unless
absolutely forbidden by statute.” (Ibid.)
The excusable neglect
standard assumes that there has been some sort of inattention or carelessness
and asks, “whether a reasonably prudent person might have made the
same error under the same or similar circumstances.” (Id. at p.
1783 (citations omitted).) In applying this standard, a court must also
examine whether the party or her counsel were “otherwise diligent in
investigating and pursuing the claim.” (Id. at pp. 1782-1783; see
also Dep't of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th
1288, 1293.)
“A petition for relief from
the claim presentation requirement under Government Code section 946.6 is a
special proceeding. The court hearing the petition makes an independent
determination on the petition. If the court grants relief from the claim
presentation requirement, the petitioner must file a complaint on the cause of
action within 30 days after the order granting relief.” (Ovando v.
County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 64 (citations omitted).)
DISCUSSION
The Court finds that on September 13, 2022, , Plaintiff
submitted an application for leave to present a late claim for damages to the
City of Los Angeles in compliance with Government Code Section 946. Defendant City of Los Angeles denied
Plaintiff’s application for leave to present a late claim. (Exhibit 3.)
Gov.
Code, § 946.6 (c) mandates that
“The
Court shall relieve a petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the
court finds that the petition was made within a reasonable time not to exceed
that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911 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.”
Here,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to timely present her claim to the
City was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect. Plaintiff has been in this Court attempting
to discern who is responsible for the condition she claims caused her to
fall. Eagle Marine demurred, claiming it
was Plaintiff’s re-named employer. Eagle
also resisted discovery propounded to it by Plaintiff (See Oppositions to Plaintiff’s
motions to compel further responses to requests for production and form and
special interrogatories.) The City then
demurred to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. It, too, resisted discovery. (See Plaintiff’s Informal Discovery
Conference Form.) In sum, Plaintiff appears
to have been whipsawed by her employer, the City’s lessee, and the City,
neither claiming to have any information as to who created the condition on
which Plaintiff claims she fell. Under
these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be relieved from Government
Code section 945.4.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the Petition.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice
of this ruling.
Plaintiff
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.