Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01485, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01485    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR ORDER OF RELIEF

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Felicita Marroquin de Sandoval (Plaintiff) brings this action against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). Plaintiff alleges that a driver for the MTA negligently operated a bus which resulted in her personal injury. Plaintiff’s complaint contains causes of action for (1) Negligence and (2) Negligent Hiring and Retention.

The Court previously granted a demurrer brought by the MTA with leave to amend, finding Plaintiff’s causes of action were barred by her failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act.

Plaintiff now moves the Court for an order relieving Plaintiff from the provisions of Section 945.4 of the Government Code (hereinafter Gov. Code § 945.5). MTA opposes the motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A tort claim for money damages against a public entity must be filed with the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)

When a claim is required by Section 911.2 to be presented within six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim. (Gov. Code§ 911.4(a).) The application shall be presented to the public entity…within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. (Gov. Code§ 911.4(b).)

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. (Gov. Code§ 946.6(a).) The petition shall show that the application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (Gov. Code§ 946.6(b)(1).)

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. (Gov. Code§ 946.6(c).)

II.                 MERITS

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown she is entitled to relief pursuant to Gov. Code § 946.6. By the plain language of the statute, Gov. Code § 946.6 requires a petitioning party to have applied for leave to present a late claim to the relevant government entity. Plaintiff has not done so here.

 Plaintiff submitted her claim to the wrong entity, the City of Los Angeles, which was rejected on September 16, 2022. (Opia-Enwemuche Decl. Exh. A.) This rejection letter shows that Plaintiff’s claimed date of loss, the date her action accrued, is March 28, 2022. (Id.) This same letter informed Plaintiff that she had directed her claim to the improper entity and gave her the address for MTA. (Id.) Several months later, on February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed her claim for damages with MTA. (Opia-Enwemuche ¶ 3, Decl. Exh. B.) This claim was rejected as untimely on February 23, 2023. (Id.)

Gov. Code § 946.6 is clear that a prerequisite to granting relief is that a petitioner filed an application for leave to present a late claim pursuant to Gov. Code § 911.4 within a reasonable time. Here, Plaintiff has provided no evidence that she ever filed an application pursuant to Gov. Code § 911.4. Plaintiff’s claim for damages, attached as Exhibit B, cannot be treated as such because it does not comply with the statutory requirements ascribed by Gov. Code§ 911.4, namely the inclusion of a reason for the late filing. (See Gov. Code§ 911.4(b).) The statute is clear that relief cannot be granted in light of such a procedural defect.

Even had such an application been submitted, it does not appear from the language of Gov. Code § 946.6 that a petition for leave can be considered after a civil action has been filed. First, the Court notes that the statute authorizes a petition and not a motion.  Second, Gov. Code § 946.6 provides, “If the court makes an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4, suit on the cause of action to which the claim relates shall be filed with the court within 30 days thereafter.”

If Gov. Code § 946.6 contemplated relief after a civil action has been filed, it would not stand to reason that the statute would refer to a petition instead of a motion, that it would direct a petitioner as to where to file, and that it would mandate a civil action be filed after such a petition is granted.

Accordingly, the motion for relief from Gov. Code § 945.4 is DENIED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Felicita Marroquin de Sandoval’s Motion for Relief came on regularly for hearing on February 23, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

ULESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  February 23, 2023                          _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles