Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 24STCP02951, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Cernas, et. al v. County of Los Angeles,

24STCP02951

Tentative decision on petition for relief from claim presentation requirements: granted in part

Petitioners Isabella Cernas (“Isabella”), Isaac Cernas (“Isaac”), and Alexis Cernas (“Alexis”) seek relief from statutory claim presentation requirements against the County of Los Angeles (“County”).

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

Petitioners Isabella, Isaac, and Alexis filed the Petition on September 13, 2024. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Petitioners’ causes of action against the County are for false arrest/false imprisonment, (2) battery, (3) negligence, (4) failure to summon medical assistance, (5) wrongful death, (6) violation of Bane Act (Civil Code §52.1), (7) survival action, and (8) negligent training.

These claims accrued on August 7, 2023. On May 9, 2024, Petitioners presented a written application for leave to present a late claim to the County’s Board of Supervisors. Petitioners’ application was denied June 10, 2024. Petitioners’ failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit occurred through mistake and excusable neglect. Petitioners’ application to the County was made within a reasonable time after the cause of action accrued.

Proof of service on file shows that the County was served with the Petition on September 18, 2024.

Under the Government Claims Act (the “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. Govt. Code¹ §§ 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).

Arturo Cernas (“Decedent”) was killed in a deputy-involved shooting on August 7, 2023. Boubion Decl., ¶3, Ex. D. Petitioners Isabella, Isaac, and Alexis are the biological children of Decedent. Boubion Decl., ¶2, Exs. A-C. At the time of Decedent’s death, all three Petitioners were minors: Alexis, born on October 31, 2005, was 17 years old; Isaac, born on January 23, was 11 years old; and Isabella, born on June 14, 2017, was six years old. Boubion Decl., ¶4.

Maritza Casillas is the mother of Isaac and Isabella and Alejandra Melendrez is the mother of Alexis. Boubion Decl., ¶¶ 5-6. Maritz Casillas retained the Carrillo Law Firm on behalf of Isaac and Isabella on October 18, 2023. Boubion Decl., ¶5. Alejandra Melendrez retained the Carrillo Law Firm on behalf of Alexis, who was a minor at the time, on October 17, 2023. Boubion Decl., ¶6.

On October 30, 2023, the Carrillo Law Firm presented claims to the County erroneously listing Maritza Casillas and Martiza Casillas as claimants and daughters of the Decedent, as well as Beatriz Loera, Decedent’s mother. Boubion Decl., ¶7, Ex. E. At the time of the mailing, Isabella, Isaac, and Alexis were minors. On October 31, 2023, Alexis Cernas turned 18 years old. Boubion Decl., ¶10.

On January 3, 2023, the County mailed denials of the claims of (1) Maritza Casillas, (2) Alejandra Melendrez, (3) Beatriz Loera, (4) and Estate of Arturo Cernas. Boubion Decl., ¶11, Exs. G-J. Each denial was sent to the Carrillo Law Firm on behalf of its client -- e.g., “Your Client: Alejandra Melendrez”. Id.

On April 19, 2024, a federal lawsuit for damages was filed in the Central District. Boubion Decl., ¶13, Ex. K. The named plaintiffs are Alexis, John I.C. Doe, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Maritza Casillas, Jane I.C. Roe, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Mritza Casillas, and Beatriz Loera. Ex. K.

Within a few days after filing the federal civil complaint, on or about April 23, 2024, the managing partner at the Carrillo Law Firm realized that the filed claims named the intended guardians ad litem for the minor claimants, rather than the minor claimants themselves. Carrillo Decl., ¶2. As soon as he realized the error, he took immediate steps to understand how the error occurred and develop a course of action to fix the error, including preparing applications for leave to file late claims. Carrillo Decl., ¶3.

On May 9, 2024, the Carrillo Law Firm filed amended claims and applications for leave to file late claims with the County on behalf of Isabella, Isaac, and Alexis. The application for leave to present the claim late and explained that the purpose of the amended claim was to identify the minor claimants by name. Boubion Decl., ¶14, Exs. L-M.

On June 14, 2024, the County denied the late claim applications. Boubion Decl., ¶15, Exs. N-P.

On September 13, 2024, Petitioners filed the Petition in this case. Boubion Decl., ¶16. The Carrillo Law Firm’s attorney explains that "the nature of the mistake or neglect" was clerical. Boubion Decl., ¶17. While drafting the claim, she misinterpreted the role of Alejandra Melendrez in relation to Alexis. Id. Alejandra Melendrez signed the retainer agreement on behalf of Alexis, who was a minor at the time. Id. While drafting the claim, the attorney inadvertently and mistakenly referred to Alexis by the name of her intended guardian ad litem. Id. The mistake or neglect arose from hastily reviewing the available records and mistaking the roles of the two individuals. Id.

The County began an investigation of immediately following the deputy-involved shooting on August 7, 2023, and notified the Decedent’s family of his death. Bourbion Decl., ¶18. On September 9, 2023, the County released to the public a Critical Incident Briefing in the form of a video which contained preliminary information and video footage capturing portions of the incident. Id. The Critical Incident Briefing stated that the investigation into the conduct of the involved deputy was ongoing. Id., Ex. R.

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’ claims accrued on August 7, 2023, when the Decedent was shot and killed by a deputy sheriff.

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.” Gov. Code §911.2.

Petitioners were required to present their claims within six months of August 7, 2023, or by approximately February 7, 2024. Petitioners’ claims were untimely transmitted to the County on May 9, 2024.

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’ claims accrued on August 7, 2023 and they were required to present their application for leave to file a late claim by August 7, 2024. The application was filed with the County on May 9, 2024. This was within a year of accrual.

The County argues that Petitioners must also show that the application for leave to file a late claim was presented within a reasonable time. The application was filed nearly nine months after the death of the Decedent. This is not a reasonable amount of time. Further, there is nothing in the application or the Petition’s supporting papers which provides the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. There is nothing in the declarations of counsel as to the reason for the nearly nine-month delay in presenting the claim. Opp. at 7.

Petitioners correctly point out that the “reasonable time” provision in section 911.4 for minors is equivalent to the one-year period for accrual of the injury. See Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1020, 1029. In other words, the neglect or ignorance of the minor’s parents will not be attributed to the minor so as to bar a late-claim application filed within one year of accrual. Id. Reply at 6. This law is dispositive for minors Isabella and Isaac.

As for Alexis, who became an adult on October 31, 2023, shortly after the August 7, 2023 accrual, Petitioners implicitly argue that their excusable neglect rendered the application for leave to file a late claim reasonable under section 911.4(b). Reply at 7. This issue is addressed post.

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 September 13, 2024, within six months of the County’s June 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. The mistake must be one that could not be avoided in the exercise of due diligence. Tammen v. County of “San Diego, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 468, 478. “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.” Id.

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.

As Petitioners argue (Pet. Op. Br. at 4-7), relief for minors Isabella and Isaac is mandatory. 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… (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. §946.6(c). Isabella and Isaac meet all these requirements and relief must be granted for them.

As for Alexis, 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. 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. See Pet. Op. Br. at 7.

Petitioners argue that the nature of their counsel’s mistake or neglect was clerical. While drafting the claim, counsel misstated the role of Alejandra Melendrez in relation to Alexis. Alejandra Melendrez signed the necessary retainer agreement on behalf of Alexis, who was a minor at the time. The claim mistakenly referred to Alexis by the name of Alexis’ intended guardian ad litem rather than herself. Boubion Decl., ¶17. The mistake or neglect arose from mistaking the roles of two individuals. Id. Pet. Op. Br. at 7.

Petitioners contend that they meet Bettencourt’s other requirement that counsel must otherwise be diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim. The claim was timely filed and against the correct entity, and even refers to the fact that the claim is brought by the Decedent’s daughter, albeit listing Alexis by the incorrect name. Pet. Op. Br. at 8.

Petitioners argue that relief has been properly granted under far less certain circumstances of excusable neglect. In Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (“Renteria”) (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, the attorney's secretary mistakenly removed the claim filing date from the office calendar, and no timely claim was filed with the public entity. After the trial court denied claimant's petition under section 946.6, the Renteria court reversed, concluding that pertinent caselaw “... deal[t] with the realities of office practice, including the inevitable misfiling of papers or erroneous clerical entries, and usually this neglect is considered excusable.” Id. at 911. Here, the failure to correctly name Alexis was based upon the reasonable mistake and excusable neglect of her counsel. Pet. Op. Br. at 8.

The County responds that Petitioners fail to present any competent evidence supporting the claim of mistake or excusable neglect. There are no facts stated in the declarations of counsel as to why, nearly nine months after Decedent’s death, the three biological children are identified for the first time as claimants on May 9, 2024. Further, the claims were not filed until six months after the denial. There is no showing of any diligence, much less reasonable diligence. There is no evidence to support any claim for excusable neglect as there is no evidence to explain the ninth month delay in identifying the three children of the Decedent as claimants. Opp. at 6.

The court agrees. Petitioners do not really explain whether their attorney committed an error of law by not knowing that the minors required guardians ad litem for a lawsuit or an error of fact by erroneously listing guardians ad litem as claimants. The former would not be excusable as an attorney is required to know the law. Assuming the attorney’s mistake was a factual error as Petitioners contend, the problem is that the error was not simply listing anticipated guardians ad litems as claimants. The October 30, 2023 claims listed Maritza Casillas and Martiza Casillas as claimants and daughters of the Decedent. Boubion Decl., ¶7, Ex. E. It is one thing to erroneously list proposed guardians ad litem as claimants and quite another to refer to them as daughters. Petitioners provide no explanation for this failure.

Moreover, Petitioners’ counsel must act otherwise diligently after making the mistake. On January 3, 2023, the County mailed denials of the claims of Maritza Casillas and Alejandra Melendrez, Each denial was sent to the Carrillo Law Firm on behalf of its client -- e.g., “Your Client: Alejandra Melendrez”. Id. Boubion Decl., ¶11, Exs. G-J. This notice should have informed Petitioners’ counsel that the minors’ mothers were wrongly listed as the claimants. Yet, there is no evidence whether counsel read these denials or an explanation for the failure to act until after the federal lawsuit was filed on April 19, 2024. See Boubion Decl., ¶13, Ex. K.

Petitioners’ counsel did not act with excusable neglect, and this failure is imputed to Alexis.

The Petition for relief from claim presentation requirements is granted for minors Isabella and Isaac and denied for Alexis.