Yan Manko et al v. Karen Rivera et al, 23STCP03928

Tentative decision on petition for leave to file late claim: granted

 

            Petitioners Aiden Manko (“Aiden”), Giselle Manko (“Giselle”), Irina Manko (“Irina”), and Yan Manko (“Yan”) (collectively, “Mankos”) seeks leave from statutory claim presentation requirements against Respondents Los Angeles County (“County”), the County’s Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”), the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”), Karen Rivera (“Rivera”), Talin Boghossian (“Boghossian”), Nancy Sandler (“Sandler”), and Detective Alejandro Bocanegra (“Bocanegra”).

            The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

 

            A. Statement of the Case

            1. Petition

            Petitioner Yan commenced this action on October 24, 2023 seeking leave to present a late claim for damages against the County and its agents.  The unverified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

            In October 2022, the Mankos were evicted from their home in Stevenson Ranch for unpaid rent.  They moved into a house directly across the street from the old residence.

            On December 21, 2023, William Ruffin (“Ruffin”), the Mankos’ former landlord, reported to the police that the Mankos stole fixtures from their old home.  The police issued a search warrant and arrested Yan and Irina for grand theft.  Ruffin’s claims were later determined to be false.

            While in the Mankos’ residence, police seized two legally owned guns.  Bocanegra later wrongly reported to DCFS that these weapons were loaded and unlocked and therefore posed a danger to the two Manko children, Aiden and Giselle.  He made other false claims in his report, including that Irina had 12 cars registered to her name and that Yan lied to law enforcement concerning the nature of his job.

            This report led DCFS to remove Aiden and Giselle from the home and place them with Irina’s mother.  Irina was granted supervised visitation for a week until DCFS permitted her to stay with her mother and her kids. Yan was only granted supervised visitation in public areas and was not permitted to enter his mother in-law’s home.

            DCFS Children’s Social Workers Rivera, Boghossian, and Sandler conspired with Bocanegra to keep the family separated.  Rivera reported false information to the court to obtain the detention order.  On February 21, 2023, the court concluded that the allegations in the petition were not true and dismissed the case.

             Under Government Code[1] section 911.2(a), a claim for damages needed to be presented by June 21, 2023 to be timely.  On that day, the Mankos timely submitted Claims for Damages to Person or Property (“Claims”) to the County’s Board of Supervisors.  Each Manko filed separate claims against LASD and DCFS.  A certified return receipt and U.S. post office receipt were obtained as proof of the June 21, 2023 mailing.

            On June 28, 2023, the Mankos’ counsel received returned Claims and realized the County’s mail department may not have accepted them.  Counsel contacted the County claims department.  A staffer named “John” indicated that the County would accept service of the Claims via overnight FedEx because they were postmarked timely and it was the County's error because the processing center did not accept or did not sign the Claims upon receipt.  The Mankos’ counsel followed those instructions and sent the package the same day.

            On June 29, 2023, John confirmed that the Claims had arrived at the County office.  He said that he would note they were postmarked timely.  On July 5, 2023, he reported the Claims had been processed but not assigned to a claims adjuster yet.  He gave the Mankos’ counsel a claim number.

            On July 10, 2023, the County asserted that the Claims were untimely.  New claim numbers were assigned for the “amended claims.”  The claims were not amended, just re-sent per John’s instructions.  On July 19, 2023, the Mankos’ counsel outlined these issues to County counsel.

            On July 24, 2023, the Mankos filed Applications for Leave to File Late Claim.  On September 5, 2023, the County issued four separate denial letters.

            The Mankos seek leave to present late claims against the County and its entities.

 

            2. Course of Proceedings

            On October 31, 2023, the Mankos served the County, LASD, and DCFS with the Petition.

 

            B. Applicable Law

            Under the Government Claims Act (the “Act”), a plaintiff bringing suit for monetary damages against a public entity or employees thereof must first present a claim to the public entity (“government claim”) which must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the public entity.  §§945.4, 950.2, 950.6(a).  To be timely, a government claim for damages must be presented to the public entity within six months of the date the cause of action accrued.  §911.2.

            If a plaintiff fails to file a government claim within the six-month period, he or she may apply to the public entity for permission to file a late claim.  §911.4.  Such an application must be presented within a reasonable time, and not later than one year after the cause of action’s accrual.  §911.4(b). 

            If the public entity denies the application for permission to file a late claim, the plaintiff may file a civil petition for relief from section 945.4's requirement of timely claim presentation prior to suit.  §946.6.  The petition must be filed within six months after the application to the public entity is denied or deemed to be denied.  §946.6(b). The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910.  §946.6(b).

            The court shall grant relief only if it finds that (1) the application to the public entity for leave to file a late claim was made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after accrual of the claim as specified in section 911.4(b), (2) was denied or deemed denied by the public agency pursuant to section 911.6, and (3) one or more of the following is applicable: (a) the failure to timely present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of section 945.4; (b) the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was a minor during all of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim; (c) the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time; or (d) the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.  §946.6(c).

 

            C. Statement of Facts[2]

            1. The Claims

The Mankos’ counsel prepared eight Claims. Faraj Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.  Each of the four Mankos had a claim against DCFS and a claim against LASD.  Ex. A.  The Claims forms left blank the spaces for total damages to date and total estimated prospective damages.  Faraj Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.  The Claims forms did not check the form box for limited civil case.  Ex. A.

            Each Claim asserted that Reyes detained and aggressively removed Aiden and Giselle from their home without a warrant or other legitimate cause.  Ex. A.  Irina, the mother, was later allowed to move in with them while they stayed with their grandmother.  Ex. A.  Yan, the father, was only allowed supervised visits.  Ex. A.  Rivera then conspired with Bocanegra, Boghossian, and Sandler to keep the family separated without cause and away from their family home.  Ex. A.  This included knowingly lying to the court to obtain the detention order.  Ex. A. 

            The Cclaims sought damages for the wrongful detention of the children without judicial authorization or adequate cause, the gross and reckless failure to properly investigate the allegations against the Mankos, making knowingly false and malicious statements to the court, and the unnecessary restrictions and emotional distress due to malicious and intentional interference with their rights to familial association.  Ex. A.

 

            2. Service of the Claims

            The Claims form stated that “Deliver or U.S. mail to Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors, Attention: Claims, 500 West Temple Street, Room #383, Los Angeles, CA 90012.”  Ex. A; Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶9. 

On June 21, 2023, Gabrielle Oyarzun (“Oyarzun”), legal assistant to Mankos’ counsel, served the Claims by certified U.S. mail to “Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors, Att: Claims, located at 500 West Temple Street, Room #383, Los Angeles, CA 90012.”  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶3, Ex. B; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, 7.  As proof of mailing on that date, Ooyarzun obtained a receipt from the post office and a green Certified Mail Receipt slip.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶3, Ex. B; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7, Ex. J. 

            Oyarzun’s address at the time was 5230 Eola Drive NW, Salem, OR 97304 and she served the Claims from the West Salem, OR post office.  Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.  The envelope for the mailed Claims lists the sender’s address as 8605 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 44953, West Hollywood, CA 90069.  Oyarzun Supp. Decl., Ex. K.[3]

            On June 28, 2023, Mankos’ counsel received the Claims as returned and realized that the County’s mail department did not accept them.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶4, Ex. C.  Oyarzun immediately contacted the County claims department via the telephone number on the Claims form.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶2; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶8.  She spoke to “John,” who asserted that he was a County employee.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶2; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶9.  John said that the County would accept service of the Claims via overnight FedEx, given that they were timely postmarked and that the County erred in not accepting the Claims and signing the receipt.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶2.  John provided the shipping information for the re-sent package and advised that he would make a note in the file regarding the reason for the delay.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶4; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶9.

.  Ozaryun also spoke to another County employee, “Rick,” who confirmed the same.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶5; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶9.

            Per John’s instructions, Oyarzun submitted the Claims again via FedEx on June 28, 2023.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶3, Ex. H.  At 9:38 a.m. that day, Ozaryun contacted the claims department and spoke to John again.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶7.  John confirmed that the Claims had arrived in the County office, and he again agreed to note in the file that the Claims were postmarked timely.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶7.  Because this was shortly before a long holiday weekend, John asked Oyarzun to call back on July 5, 2023 for the claim number.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶7. 

            When Ozaryun called on July 5, 2023, John said that the Claims were processed but had not yet been assigned to a claims adjuster.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶8.  John gave Ozaryun the claim number 234418347.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶8; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶10. 

 

            3. The Denial

            On July 10, 2023, the County sent notice that the Claims were presented on June 29, 2023 and were untimely as not presented within six months after the events occurring from June 29, 2022 to December 28, 2022.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶5, Ex. D.  The Mankos’ only recourse was to apply to the County for leave to present a late claim.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶5, Ex. D. 

            The notice further asserted that to the extent the Claims concerned events occurring from December 29, 2022 thereafter, they failed to substantially comply with the Act because they failed to provide the amount of damages claimed.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶5, Ex. D.

 

            4. The Mankos’ Response

            The July 10 letter listed a Filed Number of “23-4418347*003” and a Previous File Number of “23-4418349*001.”  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶5, Ex. D.  The second file number 23-4418349*001 therefore treated the Claims received on June 29 as amended claims, but they were not amended claims; they were merely re-served copies of the Claims.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶5. 

            On July 19, 2023, Mankos’ counsel emailed County Counsel Ann Aguilar, Esq. (“Aguilar”) about the Claims.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶6, Ex. E.  The email narrated the events concerning the June 21 mailing of the Claims, their return, the conversations with John and Rick, and John’s promise to make a note in the file about the reason for the delay.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶6, Ex. E.  John and Rick had both confirmed that this is a recurring issue with the County.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶6, Ex. E.  As for the deficiency in the Claims’ damages reference, Mankos’ counsel promised to revise and deliver them to the County by July 21 without waiving objections to the County’s argument.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶6, Ex. E.

 

            5. The Late Claim Application

            On July 24, 2023, the Mankos filed the late claim application for all eight Claims.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶7, Ex. F.  The application reiterated that any delays in receipt of the claims were solely due to error within the County's mail processing center.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶7, Ex. F.  The County had acknowledged the original mailing insofar as it provided two claim numbers, the second for “amended” claims which were in fact re-sent copies of the original Claims.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶7, Ex. F.  The Mankos had therefore timely filed the Claims.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶7, Ex. F.  To the extent someone determined they had not, the failure to do so should constitute a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect that did not prejudice the County.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶7, Ex. F.

 

            6. Amended Claims 

            The Mankos concurrently filed amended Claims to address the deficiency identified in the July 10 Letter.  Faraj Supp. Decl., ¶2, Ex. L.  The amended Claims listed the total damages to date and total estimated prospective damages as “Exceeds $25,000” and did not check the box to for a limited civil case.  Faraj Supp. Decl., ¶2, Ex. L.  John Clerk (“Clerk”) in Claims signed for the personal service of the amended Claims on the County on July 24, 2023 at 3:59 p.m.  Faraj Supp. Decl., ¶3, Ex. M.

 

            7. The Denial of the Late Claim Application

            On September 5, 2023, the County notified the Mankos’ counsel that it had rejected the Claims as presented on June 29, 2023, and denied the late claims application for each Manko.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶8, Ex. G. 

The Mankos filed this Petition on October 25, 2023.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶11.

 

            D. Analysis

            Petitioners Manko seek a determination that they complied with the Act or, in the alternative, relief from the Act’s claim presentation requirements pursuant to section 946.6.

 

1. Accrual of the Claim

            A cause of action accrues at the time a claim is complete with all of its elements.  Norgart v. Upjohn, (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397.  An exception to this usual rule exists where accrual is delayed until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.  Id.  A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she “has reason to at least suspect a factual basis for its elements.”  Id.       

            The parties do not dispute that the Mankos’ action against the County and relevant departments accrued on December 21, 2022.  Mot. at 2; Opp. at 1,

 

            2. Presentation of the Claim

            Section 911.2 mandates that claims based on causes of action for death and personal injury must be presented “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”  To be timely, the Mankos were required to present the claims to the County within six months of December 21, 2022, or by June 21, 2023.  §911.2.

Petitioners argue that the Claims were timely.  A section 949.6 proceeding is akin to a relief from default, permitting a petitioner to proceed on the underlying suit.  Ngo v. County of Los Angeles, (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 950.  Where a petitioner contends that his claim was timely presented because of delayed accrual, he may simply file a complaint for damages alleging timely compliance with the Act.  Id.  The jury will then try the issue of claim accrual as a question of fact.  Id.  The court hearing a late claim petition under section 946.6 may not take from the jury the factual question of claim accrual.  Id.  By contending that the Claims were timely, the Mankos may simply file a complaint for damages.

Other authority provides that the issue of timely filing of a claim may be determined in a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirements of section 945.4.  Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, (“Santee”) (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 711 (“the issue of timely filing may be determined in a claim-relief proceeding.”).  The Santee court acknowledged that this does not mean that the issue of timely filing must be determined by a claim-relief proceeding.  Id.  Where the date of accrual is disputed and there is a factual question of timeliness, the matter is best left to a determination by the jury in a trial for damages.  Id. at 712. 

            In this case, the undisputed facts show that the Claims were timely presented and compliant with the Act.

 

            a. Service by Mail

            A claim can be presented by mailing to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office.  §915(a)(2).  The claim, amendment, application, or notice shall be deemed to have been presented and received at the time of the deposit in a United States post office, a mailbox, sub-post office, substation, mail chute, or other similar facility regularly maintained by the government of the United States.  §915.2(a).  Proof of mailing may be made in the manner prescribed under CCP section 1013a.  §915.2(c). 

CCP section 1013a(a)(1) provides that proof of service by mail may be made by an affidavit setting forth the exact title of the document served and filed in the cause, showing the name and residence or business address of the person making the service, showing that he or she is a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurs, that he or she is over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause, and showing the date and place of deposit in the mail, the name and address of the person served as shown on the envelope, and also showing that the envelope was sealed and deposited in the mail with the postage thereon fully prepaid. 

            Alternatively, the affidavit can list (A) the name and residence or business address of the person making the service, (B) that he or she is a resident of, or employed in, the county where the mailing occurs, (C) that he or she is over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause, (D) that he or she is readily familiar with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, (E) that the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business, (F) the name and address of the person served as shown on the envelope, and the date and place of business where the correspondence was placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service, and (G) that the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices.  CCP §1013a(3).

            The Mankos assert that their counsel timely mailed the Claims on June 21, 2023 to the address listed on the Claims form.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶9; Faraj Decl., ¶2, Ex. A; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, 7, Exs. J-K.  As proof of mailing on that date, Oyarzun obtained a receipt from the West Salem Post office and a green Certified Mail Receipt slip.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶3, Ex. B; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶4, Ex. J.  The Mankos’ counsel did not know the County had not accepted the Claims until the envelope was returned on June 28, 2023.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶4, Ex. C. 

            The County argues that the evidence submitted with the moving papers is insufficient to demonstrate service by mail because it does not comply with the requirements of an affidavit under CCP section 1031a.  The County cites Rincon v. Burbank Unified Sch. Dist. (“Rincon”) (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 949, 951, where the respondent district moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s complaint based on her failure to file a petition for leave to file a late claim within six months of the district’s rejection of her claim as required by section 945.6(a).  The district submitted three declarations, one of which asserted that the district mailed the rejection of the claim on February 3, 1984.  Id. at 951-52.  A declaration from the secretary who mailed the rejection said the post office never returned the letter.  Id. at 955-956.  The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment granting summary motion because the district’s evidence was conclusory.  Id. at 955.  None of the declarations set forth whether the declarant observed the notice being mailed, by whom or where, or if it was deposited in a properly addressed sealed postage paid envelope in United States mail.  Id. 

The County argues that Petitioners’ receipts and envelope are not affidavits or certificates under penalty of perjury pursuant to CCP section 1013a.  Nor do the declarations provide facts by a personal knowledge about the mailing details as required by CCP section 1013a.  Nor was the proof of mailing provided with the Claims as required by CCP section 1013(b) to inform the receipient when the mailing occurred.  Opp. at 3-4.

            The court need not discuss this argument in detail.  The County wrong assumes that proof of mailing must occur in compliance with CCP section 1013a.  However, section 915.2(a) states that proof of mailing may be made in the manner prescribed under CCP section 1013a, and CCP section 1013a(a) provides that proof of service by mail may be made by an affidavit.  This requirement is non-exclusive, and return receipts are better evidence of timely service under section 915.2 than the CCP 1013a methods of affidavit or certification.  Call v. Los Angeles County Gen. Hosp., (1978) 77 Cal.App. 3d 911, 916-17 (receipt for certified mail with post office stamp on it established that the mail had been delivered to the post office on that date to the proper address).  Rincon is not inconsistent because the declarations were the only proof of the district’s mailing. See 178 Cal. App. 3d at 952.

            The certified mail receipt slip (Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶3, Ex. B; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶4, Ex. J) is sufficient evidence that Mankos’ counsel mailed the Claims to the proper County address on June 21, 2023.[4]  The only difference from Call is that the County did not sign the return receipt.  This difference is not significant because section 915.2(a) only requires mailing, and the mailing is deemed to have been presented and received at the time of the deposit in a United States post office.  The County’s failure to sign the certified mailing therefore is inconsequential.

            Moreover, the undisputed evidence shows that the County received and refused to sign the certified mailing.  On June 28, 2023, Mankos’ counsel received the Claims as returned.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶4, Ex. C.  Oyarzun immediately contacted the County claims department via the telephone number on the Claims form.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶2; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶8.  She spoke to “John,” who asserted that he was a County employee.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶2; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶9.  John said that the County would accept service of the Claims via overnight FedEx, given that they were timely postmarked, and that the County erred in not accepting the Claims and signing the receipt.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶2. 

            After submitting the Claims again via FedEx on June 28, 2023 (Oyarzun Decl., ¶3, Ex. H), she contacted the claims department and spoke to John again.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶7.  John confirmed that the Claims had arrived in the County office, and he again agreed to note in the file that the Claims were postmarked timely.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶7.  John asked Oyarzun to call back on July 5, 2023 for the claim number.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶7.  When Ozaryun called on July 5, 2023, John gave Ozaryun the claim number 234418347.  Oyarzun Decl., ¶8; Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶10. 

The County’s July 10 denial letter listed a Filed Number of “23-4418347*003” and a Previous File Number of “23-4418349*001.”  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶5, Ex. D.  The first number is the same number given to Oyarzun by John after she re-submitted the Claims.  The County provides no explanation for Previous File Number 23-4418349*001, and a fair inference can be drawn that it is the file number for the Claims served on June 21, 2023.  It is worth noting that the County provides no evidence about its file numbers, whether its claims processing rejected the certified mailing, or whether John recorded in the file that the Claims were timely postmarked as promised.

            As for the County’s argument that the mailing did not comply with CCP section 1013(b), which requires any paper served by mail under CCP sections 1010 et seq. to bear a notation of date and place of mailing or attach an unsigned copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing, the County fails to show that it applies to claims filing under the Act.  CCP applies to civil actions and special proceedings.  See, e.g., CCP §§ 20-21.  A claim under the Act is neither.  Section 915.2(a) expressly refers to CCP section 1013a, but it does not refer to CCP section 1013(b). 

            The County then asserts that Oyarzun mailed the Claims from Salem, Oregon (Oyarzun Supp. Decl., ¶4, Ex. J), on June 21, 2023, and it could not have received the package until a later day, which is after the six month deadline had passed.  Opp. at 4-5.  A claim is deemed presented and received at the time of the deposit in the mailbox.  §915.2(a).  Deposit in a U.S. mailbox in Oregon on June 21, 2023 is deemed to have been received by the County on that date.[5]

            The Claims were timely sent and deemed received on June 21, 2023.

           

            b. Sufficiency of the Claims

            A claim shall include, inter alia, (d) a general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim, and (f) the amount claimed if it totals less than $10,000 as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed.  §910.  If the amount claimed exceeds $10,000, the claim shall not include the dollar amount but shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.

            The County argues the Mankos failed to describe the types of damages sought under section 910(d).  Opp. at 10.  Not so.  The attachment to each Claim explains that the claimant seeks damages for the wrongful detention of the children without judicial authorization or adequate cause, the gross and reckless failure to properly investigate the allegations against the Mankos, making knowingly false and malicious statements to the court, and the unnecessary restrictions and emotional distress due to malicious and intentional interference with their rights to familial association.  Faraj Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.

The County argues that the Claims fail to list the amount of damages sought.  Opp. at 10.  The Claims forms left blank the spaces for total damages to date and total estimated prospective damages.  Faraj Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.  The Claims forms did not check the form box for limited civil case.  Ex. A.  When the July 10 letter rejected the Claims as untimely, it also stated that the Claims fail to substantially comply with the Act for failure to provide the amount of damages claimed.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶5, Ex. D. 

            The County fails to cite any provision requiring the amount of damages to be stated in a claim.  Section 910 only requires a statement of the amount claimed if the damages total less than $10,000 as of the date of presentation of the claim.  If the amount claimed exceeds $10,000, the claim shall not include the dollar amount but shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.  The Claims forms presented to the County did not check the limited civil case box, indicating that the damages amount was not within limited civil jurisdiction limits.  The Claims forms were not required to do more.

            The case cited by the County, Loehr v. County Community College District, (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, is not to the contrary.  In that case, the fired community college district employee sent a demand letter for reinstatement.  The letter made only a passing reference to damages and made no claim for money damages or even an estimated amount of injury, damage or loss.  Id. at 1083. As a result, the letter did not substantially comply with the Act’s requirements for a claim.  Id. at 1084.  Here, the Mandos’ Claims detail the County’s conduct and their injury, expressly claim damages, and decline to limit their damages to a limited civil case.  The Claims complied with section 910.[6]         

 

            c. Conclusion

            The Mankos do not need leave to file a late claim.  The Claims mailed on June 21, 2023 were timely under sections 911.2 and 915.2(c) and compliant with section 910. 

 

            3. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim

            If a plaintiff fails to file a government claim within the six-month period, he or she may apply to the public entity for permission to file a late claim.  §911.4.  Such an application must be presented within a reasonable time, and not later than one year after the cause of action’s accrual and must state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.  §911.4(b). 

            Because the cause of action accrued on December 21, 2022, the latest date to apply for permission to file a late claim was December 21, 2023.  The Mankos filed the late claim application for all eight Claims on July 24, 2023.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶7, Ex. F.  The late claim application argued that any delays in receipt of the claims were solely due to error within the County's mail processing center.  Melik-Stepanyan Decl., ¶7, Ex. F. 

The application was timely, and the County does not assert the delay was otherwise unreasonable. The County asserts that the late claim application does not meet statutory requirements because the explanation does not show why the Mankos waited until the last day to present the Claims.  Opp. at 11.  The Mankos were not required to do so.  Section 911.4(b) provides only that the application must state the reason for delay beyond six months, not delay during that period. 

The late claim application was timely and compliant.

           

            4. The Petition is Timely