Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV01701, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV01701, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01701 Hearing Date: November 16, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Sahman v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 23SMCV01701

Hearing Date November 16, 2023

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Demurrer to FAC

Plaintiff Sahman’s Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Government Code §945.4

Plaintiff Sahman alleges injuries after falling from his bike due to a crack in defendant City’s sidewalk. Defendant LAUSD demurs, arguing Sahman did not comply with the government tort claims act.

Cal. Gov. Code §945.4 states “any party with a claim for damages against a public entity must first present the claim to the entity; only if the claim is denied or rejected may the claimant then institute civil litigation.” The claim must be presented no later than six months after the accrual of the claim, i.e. the date the statute of limitations would begin to run. Gov. Code §§ 901, 9112.

If plaintiff fails to present a claim within six months, they may apply for leave to present a late claim “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” Cal. Gov. Code §911.4(b). Failure to timely present a government claim bars plaintiff from filing a lawsuit. City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 730, 737-738. The one-year deadline in §911.4 functions as a “statute of limitations” on claims against government entities. Hom v. Chico Unified School Dist. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 335.

The accident occurred April 23, 2021; the complaint was filed April 20, 2023. Defendant LAUSD demurs, arguing plaintiff did not timely present a claim nor file an application for leave to present a late claim.

Sahman admits he did not timely present a §945.4 claim or §911.4 application. He filed an untimely application on October 20, 2023, six months after filing the complaint. Sahman argues this late application should be accepted, and its untimeliness excused for excusable attorney neglect under Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b). Plaintiff’s counsel Waterman states Sahman’s now-deceased prior attorney Harris, was suffering from undiagnosed tumors, which damaged his mental capacity and caused him to forget to file the application. Waterman decl. ¶¶7-11.

Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b), which allows for relief from a “judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding” resulting from “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” or attorney error, cannot be used to circumvent the statute of limitations. Santa Monica College Faculty Ass’n. v. Santa Monica Community College (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 538, 546; Huens v. Tatum (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 249, 264.

The one-year deadline for filing a §911.4 application functions as a jurisdictional statute of limitations. Sahman is not entitled to relief for attorney error under §473(b). Code of Civ. Proc. §911.4 (c) (1)-(3) sets forth several circumstances under which the one-year application period is tolled. Excusable attorney neglect is not one of them. There is no authority under which this court can excuse Sahman from failure to comply with Government Claims Act. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.