Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV23088, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23088    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has reviewed the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) workplace disparate treatment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) hostile work harassment under FEHA; (3) FEHA retaliation; (4) failure to prevent under FEHA; and (5) wrongful termination.

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief for relief from the late filing of a claim against a government entity (the “Motion”).  Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint that alleges additional claims against Defendant Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (“LADHS” or the “County”) that require compliance with the government claim presentment statute.  The Motion contends that Plaintiff’s failure to timely present her claim to the County is due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

DISCUSSION

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.  If a claimant fails to present a claim within the statutory period, he may apply “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action” to the public entity for leave to present a late claim.  (Gov. Code § 911.4; Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777 (“Munoz”).)  If the public entity denies leave to present a late claim, a claimant may petition the court under Government Code section 946.6 for relief from the requirements of Government Code section 945.4.  (Gov. Code § 911.2; Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1777.)

A petition pursuant to Government Code section 946.6 must be filed within six months after an application for leave is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.  (Gov. Code § 946.6, subd. (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.)  If such petition is timely filed, the court may relieve a claimant from the requirements of section 945.4 if it makes certain findings, including: (1) the claimant made a timely application to the public entity for leave to present a late claim; (2) the application was denied; and (3) the failure to timely present a claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect; and/or that the injured person was a minor during the claim period, or incapacitated during the claim period, or deceased prior to the deadline for filing a claim.  (Gov. Code § 946.6, subd. (c).)  In determining whether relief is warranted under Government Code section 946.6, the court considers the petition, any affidavits submitted in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any other evidence presented at the hearing.  (Gov. Code § 946.6, subd. (e); Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1778.)

Government Code section 946.6 is a remedial statute intended to provide relief from technical rules which otherwise provide a trap for the unwary.  (Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1778.)  The remedial policy underlying the statute is that wherever possible cases should be heard on their merits.  (Id.)  Thus, a denial of such relief by the trial court is examined more rigorously than where relief is granted and any doubts which may exist should be resolved in favor of the application.  (Id.)  Because of the remedial character of the statute, “the modern trend of judicial decisions favors granting relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute.”  (Id.)

The excusable neglect standard assumes that there has been some sort of inattention or carelessness and asks “whether a reasonably prudent person might have made the same error under the same or similar circumstances.”  (Id. at 1783.)  In applying this standard, a court must also examine whether the party or her counsel were “otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.”  (Id. at 1782-83.)

Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the LADHS and that her employment was terminated on November 3, 2021.  (See Declaration of Kenneth R. Myers (“Myers Decl.”) ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff concedes that the claim she filed with the County on July 8, 2022 was not timely.  (See Myers Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit 1.)  The Motion further provides evidence that when Plaintiff did not receive a response to her July 8, 2022 claim, she resubmitted her claim on August 31, 2022.  (Myers Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit 3.)  Plaintiff’s claim was denied on September 16, 2022.  (Myers Decl. ¶ 8.)  On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel communicated with opposing counsel to discuss if the County would stipulate to relief from the claims presentation statute, and counsel for LADHS indicated that it would review Plaintiff’s request.  (See Myers Decl. ¶¶ 22-28, Exhibits 5-6.)  Plaintiff has not received an update from LADHS regarding its position on the stipulation.  (See Myers Decl. ¶¶ 29-30.)

Plaintiff argues that the failure to timely file a claim with the County was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect caused by her mistaken impression that she was employed by the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the County as a result of the overlap in the acronyms used to identify the entities.  Plaintiff provides evidence that she worked at the Men’s County Jail in Los Angeles and her employment was initiated pursuant to an independent contractor agreement with KPG Healthcare, LLC that did not mention that Plaintiff would be working under the control of LADHS.  (Declaration of Allyson Fried (“Fried Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 6, Exhibit 1.)  Plaintiff was required to be screened by the Department of Homeland Security before beginning her employment, which caused her to believe that the acronym “DHS” referred to the Federal Department of Homeland Security.  (Fried Decl. ¶ 7.)  As a result, Plaintiff did not realize that forms she saw during her employment that included references to “DHS” were referring to the County/LADHS rather than the federal government.  (Id.)  Plaintiff discovered this error when she saw an article discussing jail conditions that identified LADHS in around May 2022.  (Fried Decl. ¶ 9.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to timely present her claim to the County was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect caused by her assumption that she worked under the supervision of the Department of Homeland Security rather than LADHS.  Furthermore, once she discovered the oversight, she promptly and diligently acted to rectify the error.  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 21st day of February 2023