Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 24CHCV00691, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00691, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00691 Hearing Date: June 6, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 6-6-24

Case #24CHCV00691, Juan Jose Dario Lopez vs. County of Los Angeles Development Authority, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

PETITION FOR ORDER RELIEVING PETITIONER FROM THE PROVISIONS OF CAL. GOV. CODE § 945.4

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Juan Jose Dario Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner requests an order relieving him from the provisions of Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4.

RULING: Petition is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Petitioner Juan Jose Dario Lopez (Lopez) was a resident of a senior housing facility in Valencia, California, that was owned and managed by County of Los Angeles Development Authority (LACDA). Lopez alleges that on June 16, 2023, due to an unsafe condition at the senior housing facility, he fell down multiple stairs and suffered severe injuries. The senior housing personnel were promptly notified of the accident.

The time for Lopez to present his public entity claim to LACDA expired on December 13, 2023, six months after the incident. Lopez retained counsel on October 10, 2023. On November 22, 2023, Lopez’s counsel submitted a claim to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. By letter dated December 14, 2023, the LA County Board of Supervisors rejected Lopez’s claim and indicated that the claim should have been presented to a different LA County agency.

On January 9, 2024, Lopez’s counsel applied to LACDA for leave to present a late claim. On January 10, 2024, Lopez’s counsel received an email confirmation of receipt for consideration to submit a late claim. By a letter dated January 23, 2024, LACDA denied Lopez’s request to present a late claim. LACDA’s notice of late claim, sent on January 24, 2024, stated that they received the claim on January 23, 2024, but Lopez’s counsel had received confirmation of receipt of the claim on January 10, 2024.

Lopez filed this petition for relief from the claim presentation deadline on April 29, 2024. No opposition has been filed.

ANALYSIS

Gov. Code § 945.4 requires that a claim be presented to a government entity before a complaint may be filed against the government entity.

Gov. Code § 946.6 allows a party to petition the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4 if the application for leave to present a claim is denied. The petition shall show (1) that application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied; (2) the reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit; and (3) the information required by Section 910. (Gov. Code § 946.6(b).) The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in Section 911.4(b) (one year after accrual of the cause of action), was denied pursuant to Section 911.6, and if the failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Gov. Code § 946.6(c)(1).)

The Petitioner bears the initial burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, his entitlement to relief. (Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 910-911.) The burden then shifts to the respondent to establish prejudice. (Ramariz v. County of Merced (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 684, 689.)

The California Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he remedial policies underlying [late claim relief] are ‘that wherever possible cases be heard on their merits and any doubts which may exist should be resolved in favor of the application.’” (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435.) the late claim relief statutes must be “construed in favor of relief whenever possible.” (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 275.) “The showing required of a petitioner seeking relief [to file a late claim] because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect … is the same as required under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for relieving a party from a default judgment. [citations]. Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been applied with liberality in relieving parties from their defaults where relief can be granted without injustice to other parties. [citation]. ‘An order denying relief runs counter to the law’s policy encouraging trial and disposition on the merits.’” (Nilsson v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 976, 979.)

Lopez argues in his petition that he meets each of the conditions from Gov. Code § 946.6.(c) for relief. He applied to LACDA for late claim relief pursuant to Section 911.4 within a reasonable time; LACDA denied his application for late claim relief; and the failure to present a timely claim was due to his attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Reasonable Time

The reasonable time under Gov. Code § 946.6 is defined in Gov. Code § 911.4(b) as one year from the date the claim accrued.

Lopez’s cause of action for negligence would have accrued on the date of the incident on June 16, 2023. Lopez submitted his application for late claim relief to LACDA on January 9, 2024. That would have been well within the one year time frame from Sectio 911.4(b).

When reviewing whether a late claim was made within a reasonable time, courts also look to how much time passed between the date the mistake was realized and the date that the late application is presented to the public entity. (See Moore v State of California (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 715, 725-726 [finding that three days between realizing that a claim was not timely presented and filing the application for a late claim was reasonable].)

In this case, Lopez’s attorney realized that the claim had been filed with the wrong agency on January 4, 2024. (Akbarian Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.) Lopez’s attorney then submitted the request for consideration for late claim on January 9, 2024. This is only 5 days, and the attorney’s prompt presentations was done well within a reasonable time frame.

Denial of the Request for Consideration to Submit Late Claim

The next requirement under Gov. Code § 946.6(c) is that the public entity must have denied the application for late claim relief. LACDA denied Lopez’s request for reconsideration to submit late claim on January 23, 2024.

Attorney’s Excusable Neglect

The final requirement of Gov. Code § 946.6(c) is that the failure to file a timely claim was the result of excusable neglect. Where the neglect is by an attorney, as it was here, controlling California Supreme Court authority instructs that whether the counsel’s error is ‘excusable’ and therefore subject to relief is determined by: “(1) the nature of the mistake or neglect; and (2) whether counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.” (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276.)

“In general, cases granting relief on the basis of excusable neglect involve plaintiffs who acted diligently to retain counsel within the [claims] limitation period. It is usually the neglectful conduct of counsel, or counsel’s staff, imputed to plaintiff, which is determined to be excusable.” (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435-436.)

In this case, Lopez hired his counsel on October 10, 2023, well before the claim presentation deadline. This indicates that Lopez diligently sought representation. Because Lopez had an attorney, the failure to timely present a claim falls on his attorney. (See Nilsson v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 976; Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Dist. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 529; Flores v. Board of Supervisors (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 480.)

Lopez’s counsel indicates that the neglectful conduct was counsel’s failure to file the claim with the correct agency. The claim, which was filed on November 22, 2023, was filed with the LA County Board of Supervisors instead of being filed directly with LACDA. The letter denying the claim on this basis was not delivered to Lopez’s counsel’s office until after the expiration date of December 16, 2023. Lopez’s counsel did not see the letter denying the claim until January 4, after she had come back to the office from vacation.

In this case, Lopez’s counsel took action, but it was the wrong action. In cases like Kaslavage and Flores, the parties’ counsel did not take any action because they had miscalendared or failed to calendar the correct deadline for claim presentation. Here, Lopez’s counsel was diligent in submitting his claim, but she simply filed the claim with the wrong agency. She was also diligent in filing for relief. This is a mistake from which relief may be granted, and the law favors relief.

Lopez has demonstrated that he is entitled to relief from the requirements of Gov. Code § 945.4. No opposition has been filed by LACDA, so it is unnecessary to address whether LACDA would be prejudiced by the granting of this petition.

CONCLUSION

Lopez’s petition is granted. Lopez’s complaint filed on March 5, 2024, is deemed filed.

Moving party to give notice.