Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 24STCP02648, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Petitioners Ana Maria Samaniego (“Samaniego”) and the Estate of Consuelo Echavarri (“Estate”) apply for leave to file a late claim for damages against Respondent Southern California Regional Rail Authority dba Metrolink (“Metrolink”).

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

A. Statement of the Case

Petitioners Samaniego and the Estate filed the Petition on August 20, 2024, seeking leave to file a late claim against Metrolink pursuant to Government Code section 946.6. The operative pleading is the First Amended Petition (“FAP”) filed on October 30, 2024. The FAP alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Petitioners' wrongful death and survivor claims arise out of an auto vs. train collision on September 30, 2023, resulting in the death of Consuelo Echavarri (“Decedent”). Government claims for Petitioners Samaniego and the Estate were filed once the probate court assigned a Special Administrator for the Estate on March 26, 2024.

Petitioners prepared and served four government claims which were filed and served by mail on March 29, 2024. The claims were served by mail with Los Angeles County-Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA"), the State of California, the City of Santa Fe, and the County of Los Angeles (“County”). At the time of claim filing, neither the traffic report nor the coroner’s report had been finalized. Accordingly, Petitioners lacked potentially helpful information all responsible government entities which could be gleaned from the referenced reports.

On April 9, 2024, Petitioners' counsel received a voicemail from "Jennifer" at Carl Warren & Company, MTA’s’ claim adjuster, who stated that MTA might not be a proper party for a government claim and instead that a Metrolink train might have been involved and it would be the more appropriate entity. Prior to April 9, 2024, Petitioners were unaware of Metrolink’s involvement.

Within seven days of discovering Metrolink's potential involvement, Petitioners' counsel prepared the Application to File a Late Government Claim and sent a service agent to personally serve the application and claim with Metrolink. Petitioners' application was duly served on April 17, 2024. Petitioners' Applications were denied on May 14, 2024.

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 which must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the public entity. Government Code^{^[1]} §§945.4, 950.2, 950.6(a). To be timely, a government claim for damages must be presented to the public entity within 6 months of the date the cause of action accrued. §911.2.

If a plaintiff fails to file a government claim within the 6-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

1. Petitioners’ Evidence

Judy Perez, Esq. (“Judy”)^{^[2]} is the counsel of record for Petitioners. Judy Decl., ¶1. On or about September 30, 2023, Decedent was involved in an auto vs. train collision in the City of Santa Fe Springs. Judy Decl., ¶2. Echavarri passed away on October 1, 2023. Judy Decl., ¶2.

Prior to filing any government claims, Petitioners duly established the Estate in the probate court naming Decedent’s brother, Carlos Samaniego, as Administrator for the Estate. Judy Decl., ¶3; Frank Decl., ¶2. Petitioners needed to establish the Estate in order to properly make a claim under the Act. Judy Decl., ¶4. Despite diligent efforts by probate counsel, the order to establish the Estate and assign a Special Administrator was not approved until March 26, 2024. Judy Decl., ¶3.

On March 29, 2024, Judy prepared and served by mail four government claims on behalf of Petitioners Samaniego (Decedent's mother) and the Estate. Judy Decl., ¶5, Ex, 1. Judy filed claims with MTA, the State of California, the City of Santa Fe, and the County. Judy Decl., ¶6. Judy personally mailed the government claims. Judy Decl., ¶5.

Neither the traffic report nor the coroner’s report had been finalized when the government claims were filed. Judy Decl., ¶6; Frank Decl., ¶4. Accordingly, at the time of the claim filing, Judy’s office lacked potentially helpful information regarding the government entities responsible which could be gleaned from the referenced reports. Judy Decl., ¶6; Frank Decl., ¶5.

On April 9, 2024, Judy’s office received a voicemail from a "Jennifer" who identified herself as MTA’s claims adjuster at Carl Warren & Company. Judy Decl., ¶7: Frank Decl., ¶6. She stated that MTA may not be a proper respondent for a government claim and that Metrolink may be the more appropriate government entity with which to file a claim. Judy Decl., ¶7. Prior to April 9, 2024, Petitioners’ counsel was unaware of Metrolink’s potential involvement. Judy Decl., ¶7; Frank Decl., ¶8.

Within seven days of discovering Metrolink's involvement, Judy prepared an application to file a late government claim and sent her service agent to personally file and serve Metrolink with the application and accompanying claim. Judy Decl., ¶8. However, the service agent called Judy and informed her that the lobby guard at the building would not allow him to go up to Metrolink's floor to file the application. Judy Decl., ¶8. The lobby guard called Metrolink's legal department, but no one was present to accept the application. Judy Decl., ¶8. The service agent told Judy that he had been instructed to return the following day, April 17, 2024, at which time someone would be present at Metrolink to accept the application. Judy Decl., ¶8. The service agent returned on April 17, 2024 and filed the application. Judy Decl., ¶9, Ex. 2.

Judy subsequently received denials of the application dated May 14, 2024. Judy Decl., ¶9, Ex. 3.

2. Metrolink’s Evidence

On October 31, 2024, Petitioners Samaniego and the Estate filed a complaint against Metrolink for damages, alleging negligence, wrongful death, dangerous condition of public property, and a survival action. Zarone Decl., ¶2. Metrolink was served with the complaint on November 19, 2024. Zarone Decl., ¶3. Metrolink has had to retain counsel, Hanson Bridgett LLP, to defend the action and has begun expending litigation resources to attack the pleading via demurrer. Zarone Decl., ¶4.

On December 6, 2024, while investigating Petitioners’ claim of excusable neglect, Metrolink’s counsel, Jacob T. Zarone, Esq. (“Zarone”) Googled the phrase “Santa Fe Springs, California Train,” and the first result to appear was a link to the Metrolink website. Zarone Decl., ¶5.

Zarone reviewed the coroner’s report and the traffic crash report for the incident. Zarone Decl., ¶6, Ex. A-B. Neither identifies Metrolink as being involved in the incident. Zarone Decl., ¶6.

3. Reply Evidence

Petitioners filed the Petition on August 20, 2024 and subsequently filed the FAP on October 30, 2024. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶5.

On September 20, 2024, Petitioners received notice that Metrolink had retained counsel. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶8, Ex. 5.

Petitioners had a limited amount of time within which to file their complaint against the entities which had denied their claims. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶6. As such on October 31, 2024, Petitioners filed a complaint against all known defendants, including Metrolink. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶6. Petitioners served Metrolink with the complaint on November 19, 2024. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶6.

On December 10, 2024, Petitioners offered Metrolink an extension of time to respond to the complaint until the FAP in this case has been adjudicated. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶7. Respondent Metrolink's counsel declined the offer and informed Petitioners’ counsel that it would be filing a demurrer to the Complaint. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶7. Metrolink filed its demurrer on December 19, 2024, and the hearing is set for April 9, 2025. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶7, Ex. 6.

The incident occurred at the intersection of Rosecrans Boulevard and Marquardt Avenue, at approximately 14000 Marquardt Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, California. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶9. A Google search of "Santa Fe Springs, California Train" yields the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Train Station Transportation Center at 12650 Imperial Highway, Norwalk, CA 90650. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶9. Given that there are two MTA bus stops around the subject intersection, Petitioners made the good faith determination that MTA operated, controlled, and/or maintained the intersection and could not have predicted Metrolink's potential involvement. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶9.

D. Analysis

Petitioner seeks relief from their failure to timely make a government claim.

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 factual basis for its elements.” Id.

Petitioners’ claim accrued on September 30, 2023, when the accident occurred.

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, Petitioners were required to present their claim to Metrolink within six months of September 30, 2023, or by March 30, 2024. §911.2. Petitioners presented their claim on April 17, 2024, 18 days late.

3. 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

The application to the public entity for permission to file a late claim must be presented within a reasonable time, and not later than one year after the cause of action’s accrual. §911.4(b).

Petitioners’ claim accrued on September 30, 2023 and they were required to present their application for leave to file a late claim by September 30, 2024. The application was presented to Metrolink on April 17, 2024. This was within a year.

Petitioners note that their application was made just eight days after learning about Metrolink’s potential responsibility for the incident, which was reasonable. Pet. Op. Br. at 9. Metrolink does not dispute that the application was presented within a reasonable amount of time.

4. The application was denied or deemed denied by the public agency pursuant to section 911.6.

The petition for leave to file a late claim must be filed with the court within six months after the application to the public entity is denied or deemed to be denied. §946.6(b). The Petition was filed on August 20, 2024, within six months of Metrolink’s May 14, 2024 denial of leave to present a late claim.

6. The failure to timely present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

The purpose of the Claims Act is to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. City of San Jose v. Superior Court, (“City of San Jose”) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455. Timely compliance with the claim’s presentation is a mandatory prerequisite to maintaining a cause of action against a public entity and failure to file a claim is fatal to the claimant’s cause of action. Pacific Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. County of Riverside, (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 83, 188; San Leandro Police Officers Assoc. v. City of San Leandro, (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 553.

Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect applies to the six-month period after the accident and not to the late claim presentation requirement of a reasonable time not to exceed one year period. El Dorado Irrig. Dist. v. Superior Court, (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 57, 62. Excusable neglect is neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. Ebersol v. Cowan, (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435; Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court, (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1294. Ignorance of the claim’s filing deadline is no excuse. Harrison v. Count of Del Norte, (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1, 7; Drummond v. County of Fresno, (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1412. Mere failure to discover a fact does not constitute excusable neglect for failing to present a timely claim; the party seeking relief must establish the failure to discover the fact in the exercise of reasonable diligence. Munoz v. State of California, (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1783. “It is not the purpose of remedial statutes to grant relief from defaults which are the result of inexcusable neglect of parties or their attorneys in the performance of latter’s obligation to their clients.” Tammen v. San Diego County, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 468, 478.

Once a party retains counsel, that attorney must diligently investigate facts, identify possible defendants, and timely file the claim. Ebersol v. Cowan, supra, 35 Cal.3d at 439. A mere mistake of counsel does not provide a basis for granting relief. Tackett v. City of Huntington Beach, (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 60, 64-65. A mere failure to discover a fact does not constitute excusable neglect for failing to present a timely claim; the party seeking relief must establish the failure to discover the fact in the exercise of reasonable diligence. Munoz v. State of California, (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1783. A mistake or neglect by an attorney is imputed to the client and may not be offered by the latter as a basis for relief. Mitchell v. Department of Transportation, (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1021.

Petitioners contends that their failure to comply with the claim’s presentation requirement was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect because they were unaware of Metrolink’s potential involvement. Judy Decl., ¶7. They argue that they were diligent in preparing government claims against all entities they initially believed were responsible for the incident, as shown by their government claims served on March 29, 2024. Without the necessary information contained in the traffic crash report and/or coroner’s report, they filed claims against all entities they thought may be responsible based on a reasonable assumption. Petitioners were “surprised” to discover that Metrolink may be responsible when they received information from MTA. Once Petitioners discovered Metrolink’s potential involvement, they diligently served the application for leave to file a late claim just eight days later (and the Application would have been served within seven days if someone from Metrolink were present to accept service). Petitioners submit that this “neglect” in failing to timely get their claim to Metrolink was excusable. Pet. Op. Br. at 9-10.

Petitioners rely on Bettancourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist., (“Bettancourt”) (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 275, where the claimant’s counsel made an erroneous assumption that employees of Sacramento City College were state employees and failed to remedy the error within the time frame for government claims. Bettancourt’s counsel was confused by the blend of state and local control and funding and filed a claim with the State when he/she should have filed with the Los Rios Community College District. The Supreme Court held that counsel’s error was reasonable in light of the confusing blend of state and local control and funding of the higher education system and that counsel acted diligently once he discovered his error. Pet. Op. Br. at 9.

Petitioners argue that, as in Bettancourt, their counsel was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claims, as well as remedying the error once it was discovered. Petitioners had no way of knowing that Metrolink was involved until they received the call from the MTA claims adjuster. Pet. Op. Br. at 9.

As Metrolink argues (Opp. at 7-8)^{^[3]}, Petitioners fail to show excusable neglect in their attorney’s failure to discover Metrolink’s potential liability. Petitioners argue that they attempted to diligently serve all potential government entities involved in the accident, but they make no showing of the steps actually taken to identify potentially liable government entities. Petitioners present no evidence concerning the timely retention of counsel and what efforts their counsel undertook to identify potential defendants during the permissible six-month claim period. The Petition acknowledges that plaintiffs hired probate counsel within the six-month period to open the Estate, but neither probate counsel nor other counsel provides a declaration showing what they did to investigate the claims, identify potential defendants, and advise Petitioners of their obligations under the Act.

Petitioners seem to think that they had no duty to do more than receive and review information from law enforcement and the coroner, claiming that “necessary information was not available” during the six-month claim period because neither the traffic report nor the coroner’s report had been finalized when the government claims were filed. Judy Decl., ¶6. Accordingly, at the time of the claim filing, their counsels’ office lacked potentially helpful information regarding the government entities responsible which could be gleaned from the referenced reports. Judy Decl., ¶6.

To meet the diligence requirement, Petitioners must affirmatively investigate, not just sit back and wait for reports or rely on a MTA claims adjuster to provide information. Metrolink shows that a simple Google search of “Santa Fe Springs, California Train” would have shown Metrolink’s potential involvement because the first result that appears is a link to the Metrolink website. Zarone Decl., ¶5.

Petitioners also fail to explain when the traffic and coroner reports were requested and received, and what information they provided that would have helped identify Metrolink as a potential defendant. In fact, neither report suggests Metrolink’s involvement in the incident. Zarone Decl.,¶6, Exs. A-B. Thus, Petitioners cannot blame the lack of reports as an excuse for not timely identifying Metrolink as a potential defendant.

In reply, Petitioners argue that they hired a probate firm to open the Estate approximately one month following the incident, and it took months to establish the Estate in the probate court. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶3. The order establishing the Estate and assigning a Special Administrator was not approved until March 26, 2024. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶3, Ex. 4. Petitioners could not legally file their government claims until that time. Had Petitioners been able to file their government claims earlier, then MTA’s warning regarding Metrolink’s potential involvement would have allowed Petitioners the ability to timely file a government claim with Metrolink. Reply at 6.

Petitioners do not distinguish between Samaniego and the Estate for purposes of investigating and making a claim against Metrolink. Samaniego did not need to wait until the Estate was established to make a wrongful death claim to Metrolink. Petitioners’ counsel should have been investigating the potential defendants during the pendency of the probate petition for the Estate. Petitioners also had time to file the Estate’s claim with Metrolink before the six-month deadline passed on March 30, 2024.^{^[4]}

Petitioners further argue that, although Metrolink claims that a simple Google search of “Santa Fe Springs, California Train” would indicate its potential involvement, this search yields the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Train Station Transportation Center at 12650 Imperial Highway, Norwalk, CA 90650. The incident occurred at the Intersection of Rosecrans Boulevard and Marquardt Avenue, at approximately 14000 Marquardt Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, CA. Given that there are two MTA bus stops around the subject intersection, Petitioners made the good faith determination that MTA operated, controlled, and/or maintained the intersection, and could not have predicted Respondent Metrolink’s potential involvement. Nathaniel Reply Decl., ¶9. Reply at 8.

The short answer is that the Google search shows Metrolink’s website. Zarone Decl., ¶5. Petitioners fail to explain what investigation they made to reach a good faith determination that MTA, and not Metrolink, has responsibility for a train v. car accident. They are not mutually exclusive; both could bear responsibility. This is not a case like Bettancourt, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 275, where the claimant’s counsel made an erroneous assumption that employees of Sacramento City College were state employees and was confused by the blend of state and local control and funding. Petitioners fail to present any evidence that their counsel investigated the ownership and control of the railroad crossing at issue.

Petitioners fail to demonstrate the requisite diligence to be relieved from the requirement to timely present a claim against Metrolink.^{^[5]}

^{^[1]} All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated.

^{^[2]} The court uses first names to distinguish the Perez attorneys.

^{^[3]} Metrolink argues that Petitioners prematurely filed their complaint for damages against Metrolink, which moots their late claim relief Petition and improperly frustrates the Act’s purpose. Opp. at 4-5. Procedurally improper or not, Metrolink cites no authority that the complaint’s existence moots this Petition.

^{^[4]} Nor do Petitioners suggest that any time of equitable tolling should occur for the Estate.

^{^[5]} Given that Petitioners fail to show excusable neglect, Metrolink is not required to show prejudice. Dep’t of Water & Power v. Superior Court, (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1297.