Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 24STCP04161, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Maher ElJurdi (“ElJurdi”) seeks relief from the claim filing requirements for a complaint against Respondent County of Los Angeles (“County”).

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 ElJurdi commenced this action on December 20, 2024. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

On February 09, 2022, ElJurdi was injured from a trip-and-fall incident in which he injured his heel against a broken corner of the wall in jail where he was incarcerated. Pet. at 3.

On June 27, 2023, ElJurdi submitted to County an Application for Leave to File a Late Claim. Pet. at 3. The claim was denied for failure to meet the requirements of a late claim presentation. Pet., at 3.

Throughout the time between the injury and the application, and further though the time of the Petition, ElJurdi experienced a series of hardships including homelessness, the theft of all his property (about $50,000 in value), false allegations of domestic violence for which charges were later dropped, and diagnosis of mental health conditions including ADHD, PTSD, and schizophrenia. Pet. at 3. ElJurdi also suffered subsequent injuries, including a collapsed arch, twisted foot, and dislocated knee on October 14, 2024, a dislocated knee and torn ACL on October 25, 2024, and a broken knee on November 1, 2024. Pet. at 3.

ElJurdi seeks relief to allow him to file a complaint against the City for damages. Pet. at 2.

2. Course of Proceedings

Petitioner ElJurdi filed his Petition on December 20, 2024. There is no Proof of Service on file, but the County appeared at the February 18, 2025 Trial Setting Conference and agreed to proceed.

B. Applicable Law

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 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).

Discharge instructions from LAC+USC Medical Center, dated February 9, 2022, indicate that ElJurdi received emergency care for a laceration on his right foot. Pet. at 17.

ElJurdi attaches a page of medical notes, posted March 1, 2022. Pet. at 18. The notes do not identify the facility, institutional provider, or patient, but do identify physician Afam Kallah as physician and registered nurse Hyungjoon Jee. Pet. at 18. The court infers these notes refer to ElJurdi’s treatment at Orange County Health Care Agency. ElJurdi marks “right medial foot boney protrusion” and “significant caluses [sic] over pressure point on volar feet” under the “Objective” heading “post sprained right foot at la county [sic]” under the “Assessment” heading. Pet. at 18.

A document from Orange County Health Care Agency lists medical problems for ElJurdi. Pet. at 19. The document includes, inter alia, several conditions identified on March 1, 2022, among which was “Other sprain of right foot”. Pet. at 19.

On July 3, 2023, the County denied ElJurdi’s claim as untimely. Pet. at 5. The denial states ElJurdi presented his claim on June 23, 2023. Pet. at 5.

ElJurdi submitted an application to the County for leave to submit a late claim. Pet. at 8. The application does not include a date. Pet. at 8.

On August 8, 2023, the County notified ElJurdi that his application for leave to present a late claim had been denied. Pet. at 30. The denial states that ElJurdi presented his claim on June 23, 2023 and his late claim application on July 27, 2023, and that the County denied the claim on August 2, 2023. Pet. at 30.

A medical document, labeled “Test Form” indicates that Emily Charlton, FNP-C, referred ElJurdi for a neurology consult on May 13, 2022 based on Postconcussion Syndrome, lack of concentration, chronic tenson headaches, and memory loss. Pet. at 9.

A letter from Allison R. Hadley, MD, confirms that ElJurdi received emergency medical treatment on September 28, 2023. Pet. at 10.

A chart describes ElJurdi’s current health issues, including “Mental health problem Started 12/6/2023”; “Moderate manic bipolar I disorder Started 8/14/2024”; “Psychotic disorder Started 8/14/2024”; “Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), predominantly inattentive type Started 11/25/2024”; “PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Started 11/25/2024”; and “Generalized anxiety disorder Starte 11/25/2024”. Pet. at 11. ElJurdi attaches a list of his current medications. Pet. at 12.

A Criminal Register for case number 2AR00113 (LAX-2AR00113-01), People v. ElJurdi, shows a violation date of January 20, 2022. Pet. at 20. The prosecution announced it was unable to proceed, and the court granted ElJurdi’s motion to dismiss. Pet. at 29.

On reply, ElJurdi attaches new exhibits.[3] Some of these exhibits were previously attached to the Petition.

ElJurdi attaches a copy of Orange County Health Care Agency’s Authorization to Use & Disclose Protected Health Information, filled and signed by ElJurdi on January 19, 2023. Reply, Ex. B P1.

ElJurdi attaches a description of an appointment for foot surgery, dated April 11, 2025, at Hillsboro Medical Center Outpatient Surg in Hillsboro, Oregon (Reply, Ex. B P5) and an X-ray image of his foot. Reply, Ex. B P6.

ElJurdi attaches Progress Notes by Lara Atwater, MD, dated November 7, 2024 for a right-sided foot deformity. Reply, Ex. B. P7.

ElJurdi attaches pages 8 and 9 out of 10 of a police report by a police officer, entered on January 3, 2025. Reply, Ex. C P1. The page includes part of a narrative by the officer, describing ElJurdi’s account thathis belongings in a storage unit, valued at over $500,000, were removed while he was in jail. Reply, Ex. C P1. The officer concluded this was a civil matter. Reply, Ex. C P1. ElJurdi attaches a complaint against Ramiro Guillen alleging theft of ElJurdi’s property from the storage unit. Reply, Ex. D P1.

ElJurdi attaches two screen captures, on from Facebook and one from Google, as evidence of the deaths of his friend and girlfriend. Reply, Ex. E P1, Ex. E P2.

Petitioner ElJurdi seeks relief from claim presentation requirements so that he can file a civil complaint against the County.

ElJurdi’s claim accrued on February 9, 2022, when he fell and landed on a damaged sharp corner of the wall by his bed in the Supermax Detention Center, cutting three inches into his heel. Pet. At 3.

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, ElJurdi was required to present his claim to the County within six months of February 9, 2022, or by August 9, 2022. §911.2.

ElJurdi presented his claim on June 23, 2023, over nine months late, which he admits was untimely.

3. The Application to the Public Entity for Leave to File a Late Claim Was Not 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).

ElJurdi’s claim accrued on February 9, 2022 and he was required to present the application for leave to file a late claim by February 9, 2023. The application was presented to the County on Jun 27, 2023. This was not within one year of accrual. As the County argues (Opp. at 4), this requirement is jurisdictional for relief in a late claim petition, and the court cannot grant a late claim petition where the late claim application to the public entity was not made within a year of claim accrual. Munoz v. State of California, (1995) 33 Cal.App.4^th 1767, 1779.

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

The County denied ElJurdi’s application to present a late claim on August 2, 2023.

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).

ElJurdi’s late claim application was denied on August 2, 2023, and he was required to file the Petition by February 2, 2024. The Petition was filed on December 20, 2024 ten and-a-half months late.

In reply, ElJurdi argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled for mental incapacity. ElJurdi cites no authority for his argument.

CCP section 352(a) provides for tolling of the time to file a lawsuit where the person entitled to bring the action lacks capacity at the time of the accrual. CCP §352(a). However, CCP section 352(b) excludes actions against a public entity which must be presented in accordance with Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Government Code. CCP §352(b). This action is such an action.

Section 946.6(c) provides that a petitioner’s mental incapacity is a basis to relieve him or her from the failure to present his initial claim within six months. §946(c)(4)-(5). Even then, however, 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. Id. Moreover, lack of capacity is not a basis to toll the time that a petitioner must file his or her petition.

6. The Failure to Timely Present the Claim Was Not 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, (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 (“El Dorado”), (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.

“[T]he type of disability which justifies relief from the [Claims Act] on the grounds of incapacity is an all-encompassing disability which prevents the claimant from even authorizing another to file a claim for the claimant.” Barragan v. County of Los Angeles (“Barragan”), (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1384.

ElJurdi contends that his failure to comply with the claim’s presentation requirement was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect because he was ignorant of his cause of action. ElJurdi contends this is excusable neglect under Ebersol v. Cowan (“Ebersol”), (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427. ElJurdi also argues that he was mentally incapacitated, a separate ground from excusable neglect. ElJurdi relies on his diagnoses of mental disorders.

The mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect ground applies only 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, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at 62. Nor does it apply to the six-month period to file the court petition for leave to file a late claim under section §946.6(b). As a result, this ground cannot aid ElJurdi.

Nor does he show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. ElJurdi’s failure to know he had a claim does not qualify. In Ebersol, the claimant did not merely fail to know that she had a claim. Id. The claimant sought counsel for her injury but was told repeatedly by multiple lawyers that she had no claim. Id. at 437. The Ebersol court ruled that “in order to obtain relief under section 946.6 on the basis of excusable neglect, the claimant must at a minimum make a diligent effort to obtain legal counsel….” Id. 439. ElJurdi has not shown such diligence.

ElJurdi’s diagnoses of mental disorders do not qualify either. First, they occurred well after the relevant period. The earliest diagnosis for which ElJurdi provided evidence occurred on December 6, 2023. More important, a diagnosis of mental disorder is not sufficient to show incapacity. The disability must be so severe that a claimant cannot ask somebody else to file a claim on his or her behalf. Barragan, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 1384. ElJurdi has not shown this severity of mental disability, either for the whole period, or for a portion thereof.

The Petition for relief from claim presentation requirements to permit ElJurdi to file a civil complaint is denied for three reasons. First, ElJurdi’s application to the County for permission to file a late claim was not presented within one year after the cause of action’s accrual as required by section 911.4(b). Second, his Petition was not timely filed with the court within six months after his late claim application to the County was denied as required by 946.6(b). Third, ElJurdi has not shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect sufficient to excuse his initial failure to timely present a claim under section 946.6(c).

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

[2] ElJurdi attaches several exhibits to his Petition. These exhibits are unauthenticated, but the court exercises its discretion to consider them. The exhibits also are unlabeled, and the citations will refer to the page number within the Petition.