Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 23STCP03583, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03583    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Friday, March 8, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                   23STCP03583

CASE NAME:                        Svetlana Gennadyeuna Brouke v. City of Pasadena

MOVING PARTY:                 Petitioner Svetlana Gennadyeuna Brouke

OPPOSING PARTY:             Respondent City of Pasadena

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

PROCEEDING:                      Leave to File Late Government Claim

OPPOSITION:                        02 February 2024

REPLY:                                  03 March 2024

TENTATIVE:                         Petitioner’s Petition is granted. Petitioner to give notice.

Leave to file late government claim

I.         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 California (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, at p. 1777.¿) 

If an injured party who has failed to timely file a claim has submitted a written application to the public entity for leave to present such claim and the application has been denied, the injured party may petition the court for relief from the claim requirements.¿(Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at . 1777.) A petition pursuant to Gov. Code § 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.) 

II.        Discussion

“If the public entity denies the application to file a late claim, section 946.6 authorizes the injured party to petition the trial court for relief from the claim filing requirements. In ruling on the petition, the trial court “shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4” to timely file a claim if two requirements are met. (§ 946.6, subd. (c).) First, the application to the public entity to file a late claim must have been made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (§ 946.6, subd. (c).) Second, one of the four circumstances set forth in section 946.6, subdivision (c) must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 946.6, subd. (c).” (N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 72.) “The court decides whether to grant relief pursuant to Section 946.6 on the basis of the petition, declarations, and evidence offered in support of or opposition to the petition.” (Garber v. City of Clovis (E.D. Cal. 2010) 698 F.Supp.2d 1204, 1210.) 

On March 23, 2022, Petitioner was seriously injured as a result of a trip and fall that occurred in the crosswalk at the northwest corner of the intersection of Colorado Blvd and Allen Ave in Pasadena, California. (Hundley Decl. ¶ 1.) Petitioner believed that a private construction company, Chi Construction, was responsible for the fall and sought legal counsel to pursue a claim against the private company but did not know at the time that she could pursue a claim against the City of Pasadena. (See i.e. Supp. Hudley Decl. at p. 2) It was not until talking with counsel on March 2, 2023, that Petitioner learned she had a claim against Respondent. (Hudley Decl. ¶ 1.) Accordingly, on March 7, 2023, Petitioner formally retained counsel to represent her and present a late claim to Respondent for her March 23, 2022, fall. (Hudley Decl. ¶ 2.) According to Respondent, on March 8, 2023, Petitioner via her counsel requested leave to submit a late claim for damages, via a letter dated March 7, 2023. (St. Clair Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) On April 3, 2023, the city rejected Petitioner’s request for leave to present a late claim. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. 2.)

The Respondent asserts that Petitioner was dilatory in seeking counsel to present a late claim. “The claimant must, at a minimum, make a diligent effort to obtain legal counsel within six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1779 (Munoz) [italics added].) Here, within one year of her injury, on March 2, 2023, Petitioner sought legal counsel and did in fact retain legal counsel to March 7, 2023. (Hudley Decl. ¶ 3.) However, “[w]hen 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 Government Code section 946.6.” (Munoz, at p. 1779.) Respondent asserts that because Petitioner’s injury occurred on March 22, 2022, her cause of action accrued on September 21, 2022, which is six months from the date she sustained her injury under Gov. Code section 911.2. (See People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 39, 43 [“Section 911.2 requires that a claim for personal injury or wrongful death against a public entity be filed ‘not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.’”] [italics added].)

Assuming the Petitioner’s claim did accrue on September 21, 2022, the Petitioner had six months after this date, or until March 21, 2023, to file a late claim with the city under Gov. Code section 911.2. The facts establish that Petitioner filed her request with the City on March 8, 2023, well within the six-month deadline. (St. Clair Dec, ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Accordingly, the Petition is timely, and Respondent fails to show that the court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. “A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a petition for relief from the claim-filing requirement as long as the issue is whether the late claim was presented within a ‘reasonable time’ not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action. [Citations.] When an application to file a late claim is itself not timely filed, however, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under section 946.6. [Citations.]” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Crystal B., Steven G., Anita G.) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1313–1314.) “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 Government Code section 946.6.” (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1221.) Here, the underlying application was filed on March 8, 2023, within one year after the accrual of the cause of action. After the Petition was denied by Respondent City on April 3, 2023, Petitioner had six months, or until October 3, 2023, to file this Petition. (Gov. Code, § 946.6.) Petitioner filed this Petition on October 2, 2023.

The court further finds that Petitioner was diligent in seeking counsel and the failure to present the claim was due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” as the Petitioner thought she only had claims against a private entity and not the city. (Supp. Hudley Decl.) Petitioner further asserts that Respondent City would not be prejudiced because the City investigated the fall on the date it occurred, obtained a police report, has pictures of the location where the incident occurred, and has already tendered this matter to the insurance company for Chi Construction. (Petition Ex. A, Supp. Hudley Decl. )

Accordingly, the Petition is granted.

Conclusion

The Petition is granted. Petitioner to give notice.