Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 24STCP02783, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Lori Blackwell (“Blackwell”) seeks relief under Government Code Section 946.6 to allow her to continue her claims against Respondent City of Santa Clarita (“City”).

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

A. Statement of the Case

1. The Petition

Petitioner Blackwell commenced this action on August 28, 2024. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

On or about July 25, 2023, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Blackwell was walking through the Parkway at or near 23502 Lyons Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 (“Parkway”). Pet., ¶3. The sidewalk adjacent to the Parkway was dark, unlit, and busy with walkers, runners, and bicyclists. Pet., ¶4. The sidewalk was further obstructed by overgrown shrubs and trees, and Blackwell was forced to walk on the Parkway. Pet., ¶4. Blackwell tripped on a protruding sprinkler head on the Parkway and sustained injuries to her body. Pet., ¶5.

The City permitted or created the dangerous condition by failing to address overgrown trees and shrubs along the sidewalk, failing to maintain adequate lighting, and failing to maintain the Parkway free from obstacles such as a protruding sprinkler head. Pet., ¶6.

The six-month date to file a claim with the City was January 26, 2024. Pet., ¶7. The attorneys for Blackwell were under the mistaken belief that the City was an unincorporated area within the County of Los Angeles (“County”) and that this claim had to be filed with the County. Pet., ¶8, Ex. 1. Relying on the firm’s legal assistant’s research, Blackwell’s counsel filed a claim with the County on December 7, 2023, and did not file one with the City. Pet., ¶9, Ex. 2. The County denied the claim. Pet., ¶10.

Based upon the denial, Blackwell filed a Complaint against the County on February 13, 2024. Pet., ¶11, Ex. 3. After serving the Complaint, Blackwell’s counsel received a letter from the County’s counsel along with a declaration that the location where Blackwell was injured was within the City’s jurisdiction. Pet., ¶12, Ex. 4. Blackwell then dismissed her Complaint against the County. Pet., ¶13.

On or about April 26, 2024, Blackwell’s counsel filed an application for leave to file a late claim request with the City under Government Code section 911.4. Pet., ¶14, Ex. 5. On or about May 3, 2024, the City rejected the application. Pet., ¶15, Ex. 6.

Petitioner Blackwell seeks damages exceeding $10,000.00, statutory and other penalties, attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs as provided by law. Pet., ¶20.

2. Course of Proceedings

A proof of service on file shows that Petitioner Blackwell served the summons and Petition on Respondent City via substituted service on November 5, 2024.

B. Applicable Law

Under the Government Claims Act (“Claims 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. 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 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).

On August 28, 2023, Petitioner Blackwell’s counsel, Thomas J. Ryu, Esq. (“Ryu”) asked his legal assistant at the time, Ian Idels (“Idels”) to find out whether the City had its own government claims form. Ryu Decl., ¶2. After his research, Idels emailed Ru that he could not find any specific form for the City. Ryu Decl., ¶2, Ex. 1. Based on this information, Mr. Ryu filed “Claims for Damages to Person or Property” with the County on December 7, 2023. Ryu Decl., ¶3, Ex. 2. The County denied Blackwell’s claim. Ryu Decl., ¶4.

On February 9, 2024, based on the County’s denial of Blackwell’s claim, Ryu filed a Complaint against the County for (1) Negligence and (2) Premises Liability. Ryu Decl., ¶5, Ex. 3. On March 14, 2024, Mr. Ryu received a letter from the County’s attorney, Alexandra Buechner, Esq. Ryu Decl., ¶6, Ex. 4. The letter came with a Declaration of Rosemarie Brazal, who declared that she is employed by the County’s Department of Public Works in the position of Investigator I in the Claims & Litigation Section of Survey/Mapping & property Management Division. Ryu Decl., ¶6. Ms. Brazal’s declaration advised that the area where Blackwell sustained her injuries is not owned, maintained, and/or controlled by the County but is within the jurisdiction of the City. Ryu Decl., ¶6. This was the first that Ryu learned the City is incorporated and has its own claim form, which means Blackwell’s claim should have been filed with the City. Ryu Decl., ¶7.

On or about April 23, 2024, Ryu sent the City a Request of Acceptance of Late Claim, which fully complied with section 911.4. Ryu Decl., ¶8, Ex. 5. On or about May 3, 2024, Ryu received a letter entitled “Rejection of Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim” from Carl Warrant & Company, advising that Blackwell’s Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim was rejected. Ryu Decl., ¶9, Ex. 6.

Petitioner Blackwell’s late claim was due to attorney inadvertence or excusable neglect as Ryu’s office erroneously concluded that the City was unincorporated and the claim should be filed with the County. Ryu Decl., ¶10.

The City does not limit government tort claims against it to a specific form provided the claimant submits a claim in writing that complies with section 910. Hamblet Decl., ¶4; Hamblet Decl., ¶3. The City does have a claim form, both in electronic form and as a pdf, which can be printed out. Hamblet Decl., ¶3. This form can be obtained by calling the City’s risk management office. Hamblet Decl., ¶3. The City’s’ counsel is informed and believed that City staff are instructed to direct any claim inquiries to that office. Hamblet Decl., ¶3.

In the Petition, Blackwell identifies 23502 Lyons Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 as the location where her accident occurred. Hamblet Decl., ¶4. The City’s counsel typed the words “Santa Clarita California” into Google, which stated that the City was incorporated on December 15, 1987 and provided a link to the City’s website. Hamblet Decl., ¶4. Upon clicking on the link to the City’s website, counsel was instantly directed to a page with phone numbers to call the City for further information. Hamblet Decl., ¶4.

Blackwell’s delay to date of about a year and 4 months would cause a hardship to the City if it was forced to defend itself against her claim. Hamblet Decl., ¶5.

Petitioner Blackwell seeks relief from claim presentation requirements so that she can file suit against the City.

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.

Blackwell fails to present any evidence of the date, time, and location of her accident. Her Petition is unverified and there is no declaration discussing these issues.

If the court were to consider the unverified Petition’s allegations, the accident occurred on or about July 25, 2023, at approximately 9:45 p.m., when Blackwell was walking through the Parkway at or near 23502 Lyons Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA 91321. Pet., ¶3. Blackwell tripped on a protruding sprinkler head on the Parkway and sustained injuries to her body. Pet., ¶5. The accrual date was July 25, 2023.

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, Blackwell was required to present her claim to the City within six months of July 25, 2023, or by January 26, 2024. §911.2.

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

Blackwell’s claim accrued on July 25, 2023. She was required to present her application for leave to file a late claim within a reasonable time and no later than July 25, 2024. Blackwell filed her application to present a late claim on April 23, 2024. The late claim application was made within a year.

The City argues that the late claim was not made within a reasonable time because Idel’s email was dated August 28, 2023, the County denied Blackwell’s claim sometime after it was submitted on December 7, 2023, and the late claim was not submitted until April 23, 2024. Opp. at 7-8. The court agrees. Blackwell cannot reasonably wait until the County proved the claim should have been filed with the City in a March 14, 2024 letter and accompanying decloaration.

4. The Application Was Denied or Deemed Denied By the Public Agency Pursuant to Section 911.6

Blackwell’s request for leave to file a late claim was denied by the City’s agent, Carl Warren Co., on May 3, 2024.

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 28, 2024, within six months of the City’s denial of leave to present a late claim.

6. The Failure to Timely Present the Claim Was Made Through Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect

Blackwell argues that her failure to comply with the claim presentation requirement was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Pet. Op.Br. at 3-4. She further argues that the City would not be prejudiced by granting of this Petition. Pet. Op. Br. at 4-5.

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 claim presentation requirements 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. Ignorance of the claims 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.

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. 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. Excusable neglect is defined as an act or omission that might be expected of a prudent person under similar circumstances. Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court, (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1294.

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.

“‘The mere recital of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is not sufficient to warrant relief. Relief on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is available only on a showing that the claimant's failure to timely present a claim was reasonable when tested by the objective ‘reasonably prudent person’ standard.’” N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 73–74 (citation omitted). “Under the reasonably prudent person standard, ‘[e]xcusable neglect is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.’” Id. Because of the reasonably prudent person standard, not every mistake will excuse a default; the determining factor is the reasonableness of the misconception. Id.

A showing of reasonable diligence is required. When excusable neglect is claimed based on ignorance of a fact or failure to act on it, the petitioner must show more than just failure to discover a fact until too late; or a simple failure to act. He or she must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she could not discover the fact or could not act upon it in the exercise of reasonable diligence. Id. When mistake is claimed, the petitioner must establish that he or she was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim. Id. Under this standard, the failure to discover the alleged basis of the cause of action in time is not a compelling showing in the absence of reasonable diligence exercised for the purpose of discovering the facts. Id.

Blackwell relies on the following facts. Her counsel, relying on internet research, mistakenly believed that the was “an incorporated city with the County”. Ryu Decl., ¶2; Ex. 1. Based on this mistaken belief, Blackwell’s counsel presented a claim to the County on December 7, 2023. Ryu Decl., ¶3, Ex.2. The County denied her claim and Blackwell filed suit. Ryu Decl., ¶¶ 4-5. On March 14, 2024, the County’s attorney provided a declaration that the location of Blackwell’s injuries was in the City’s jurisdiction. Ryu Decl., ¶6. Ex. 4. This was the first Blackwell’s counsel learned that the claim should have been filed with the City. Ryu Decl., ¶7. Pet. Op. Br. at 3-4.

Blackwell concludes that her failure to make a timely claim to the City was due to her counsel’s inadvertence or excusable neglect. Had her counsel conducted their research more thoroughly, they could have found out that the City is incorporated and that the claim needed to be filed with the City. It also did not help that the County did not advise Blackwell’s counsel that her claim was within the City’s jurisdiction until the lawsuit was filed. Pet. Op. Br. at 4.

Blackwell has not shown reasonable diligence. She admits that she knew her accident in the Parkway at or near 23502 Lyons Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA 91321. Thus, she knew the accident occurred in the City. She claims that her counsel believed the City is part of an unincorporated area of the County. But the City shows that a simple Google search would show that the City is incorporated. Hamblet Decl., ¶4.

Moreover, Blackwell’s counsel’s sole basis for not filing a claim with the City is that his legal assistant Idels could not find a specific claim form for the City on the internet. Ryu Decl., Ex. A. Therefore, counsel filed a claim with the County. The premise of this action is false. The mere fact that Idels could not find a claim form does not mean a government claim should not be filed with the City. The City shows that it does not require a specific form and will accept any claim in writing that complies with section 910. Hamblet Decl., ¶3. Moreover, the City does have a claim form, both in electronic form and as a pdf, which can be printed out and that Blackwell’s counsel could have obtained by calling the City’s risk management office. Hamblet Decl., ¶3. Upon clicking on the link to the City’s website, Blackwell’s counsel would have been directed to a page with phone numbers to call the City for further information. Hamblet Decl., ¶4.

Blackwell’s counsel did not act with reasonable diligence and her claim of excusable neglect or mistake is not supported.[2]

For all these reasons, the petition for relief from claim presentation requirements is denied.

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

[2] The City’s argument of prejudice is inadequately supported.