Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCP00120, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCP00120, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCP00120 Hearing Date: May 8, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Singletary v. City of LA and County of Santa Barbara., Case No. 24SMCP00120

Hearing date May 8, 2024

Petitioner’s Petition for Relief from Claim Presentation Requirements of Government Code Section 945.4

Petitioner Singletary alleges he was shot in the face with a rubber bullet by law enforcement officers employed by new respondents, City of Los Angeles (“LA”) and County of Santa Barbara (“SB”) (collectively “new respondents”) during a protest in Santa Monica on May 31, 2020. Petitioner failed to present a claim against new respondents within the six-month period provided by Gov. Code section 911.2 due to alleged inability to identify those law enforcement officers as being from a department other than the City of Santa Monica.

Petitioner timely filed a claim for damages with the federal court on July 7, 2020, against Santa Monica and filed a complaint for damages and a jury demand in the United States District Court on March 10, 2022.

On January 23, 2023 petitioner learned from Santa Monica that the officers responsible for firing the rubber bullets were from LA and SB, after SM officials reviewed petitioner’s cell phone footage. Petitioner subsequently filed his late claim application with new respondents on June 9, 2023, and, after new respondents denied the applications, filed this petition for relief from late claim.

Date of Accrual

“The California rule on delayed discovery of a cause of action is the statute of limitation begins to run ‘when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause . . . .’ ‘A plaintiff need not be aware of the specific “facts” necessary to establish the claim; that is a process contemplated by pretrial discovery. . . . So long as a suspicion exists, it is clear that the plaintiff must go find the facts; she cannot wait for the facts to find her.’” MGA Entertainment,

Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 554, 561.

Petitioner argues that though he was injured May 31, 2020, the statute of limitations is governed by the delayed discovery rule. Petitioner states on January 23, 2023, he learned from Santa Monica Police Department (“SMPD”) that the officers who fired the rubber bullets were from new respondents’ municipalities. According to SMPD, new respondents were present at the request of SMPD, which sought aid from neighboring law enforcement agencies per a mutual aid agreement. Petitioner alleges SMPD claimed new respondents were not part of SMPD’s Area A mutual aid agreement. Id. Petitioner claims SMPD identified new respondents by examining third-party cellphone video footage previously in petitioner’s possession. Petitioner asserts SMPD’s technology technician manipulated the video footage and was able to identify badges belonging to members of respondents’ law enforcement agencies.

Respondent SB argues the claim accrued on May 31, 2020, the date of injury, more than a year before petitioner filed his application for late claim on June 9, 2023. SB argues petitioner was aware of his injuries on May 31, 2020 and was in possession of video footage showing two distinct law enforcement uniforms present that day. SB argues petitioner had notice because on May 4, 2021, the Office of Independent Review Report (“OIR Report”) stated County officers were present.

Respondent LA likewise argues delayed discovery does not apply. Per Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 812; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1991) 21 Cal.4th 383, 399, “ignorance of the identity of the defendant does not delay accrual of a cause of action.” LA argues delayed discovery only applies when plaintiff establishes he could not have discovered the wrongdoing that caused the injury until a date after the general suspicion of wrongdoing, which is not the case here.

Petitioner argues he was only on inquiry notice on January 23, 2023, after he was informed by SM via the related federal case that the video depicted new respondents’ officers. Petitioner argues an expert was needed to review the footage to reveal new respondents were present, the OIR Report did not mention the incident in which petitioner was injured, so did not provide notice of new respondents’ presence, and specialized knowledge is required to distinguish agencies in the video depicting the incident.

The cause of action accrued on May 31, 2020, the date of injury. The delayed discovery rule pertains to delayed discovery of wrongdoing, not delayed discovery of defendants. Petitioner was in possession of the video from the outset. He failed to do his own discovery. The court accepts as true that he only had actual knowledge of the presence of LA/SB officers after being so informed in 2023, but this does not meet the criteria for delayed discovery. Petitioner could have discovered the presence of the other agencies through his own diligent discovery and review of his video footage or otherwise, but he failed to do so. Had he been diligent, he should have discovered the identities of all involved law enforcement agencies in time to file timely claims.

Lateness of Claim and/or Excusable Neglect

Under Gov. Code section 946.6, a court shall relieve the petitioner from Gov. Code section 945.4 (necessity of written claim acted upon by board or deemed to have been rejected) if the court finds (1) the application under Gov. Code section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after accrual of the cause of action; (2) the application was denied or deemed denied; and (3) the failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Filing a late-claim application within one year after the accrual of a cause of action is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a claim-relief petition. Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 713, 269 Cal.Rptr. 605. When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under Gov. Code section 946.6. Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 488, 231 Cal.Rptr. 702.

Petitioner argues his claim did not accrue until January 23, 2023 – three and a half years after the incident – when SMPD informed him of the presence of LA/SB officers. Petitioner filed applications with LA on June 7, 2023 and new SB on June 9, 2023 (denied June 15, 2023 and June 24, 2023, respectively). Id. ¶¶ 11-14. Thus, petitioner argues the petition was timely filed on August 21, 2023, with the federal district court which subsequently transferred the case to this court on November 2, 2023. Id. ¶15.

SB argues the application for leave to present a late claim was not timely filed and petitioner did not use due diligence to investigate, despite being in possession of the OIR Report, the knowledge of the mutual aid agreement and the cellphone video footage. County asserts petitioner’s failure to review the video or retain necessary assistance in doing so is not excusable.

SB argues “the six-month statute of limitations is inviolate [and] ... cannot be extended by provisions outside the Tort Claims Act.” Martell v. Antelope Valley Hospital Medical Center (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 978, 982.

In addressing petitioner’s argument that by filing the petition in August of 2023 with the federal court, the petition was timely, LA asserts 946.6 expressly vests California superior courts, not federal courts, with the sole jurisdiction over petitions for relief from the requirements of section 945.4. Petitioner argues under equitable tolling, he had until March 15, 2024, to file the petition because California Superior Courts apply equitable tolling over state court causes of action when a federal claim is pursued in good faith.

The Court need not resolve the issues of equitable tolling or electronic filing apply because petitioner’s cause of action accrued May 31, 2020. As such, petitioner’s June 2023 applications to LA and SB were made over three years since the incident, leaving this Court without jurisdiction to grant relief under Gov. Code, section 946.6. DENIED.