Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV40449 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff seeks a court order permitting Plaintiff to file an action against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”). Plaintiff argues that while a timely government tort claim was filed with the City and County, a claim was not filed against LACMTA because LACMTA was only revealed as a real party during discovery on April 7, 2022.

Government Code section 946.6 provides that “[i]f an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4 [requiring a claim to be presented to a public entity before an action may be brought against the public entity].” (Gov. Code, § 946.6(a).) The petition must be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied. (Id., § 946.6(b).) The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds (1) the application to the board was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in Section 911.4(b); (2) was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6; and (3) that one or more of the enumerated reasons applies. (Id., § 946.6(c).) The enumerated reasons include (1) the failure to 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 relief is granted; (2) the person who sustained the alleged injury or loss was a minor during the time the claim was to be presented; (3) the person who sustained the alleged injury or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during the time the claim was to be presented; and (4) the person who sustained the alleged injury or loss died before the expiration of the time to present the claim. (Id.)

The excusable neglect standard assumes that there has been some sort of inattention or carelessness and asks “whether a reasonably prudent person might have made the same error under the same or similar circumstances.” (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1783.) In applying this standard, a court must also examine whether the party or her counsel were “otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.” (Id.)

Government Code section 911.4(b) provides that an application to the board to present a claim must be made within one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.4(b).) A cause of action accrues when the wrongful act is done or the wrongful result occurs. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397.)

Plaintiff, in her motion, attests that she only discovered LACMTA was a real party in interest during discovery on April 7, 2022. Plaintiff previously filed government claims with both the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles. (Motion, p.3.) Plaintiff’s counsel made reasonable efforts to identify all government entities potentially responsible for the drain and road where Plaintiff crashed by searching public property records. (Id.) Plaintiff’s deadline to submit government claims against the government entities in this matter was September 19, 2021 under Gov. Code section 911.2. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel received information showing that LACMTA was a real party in interest on April 7, 2022 and filed a government claim on April 8, 2022. (Motion, p. 4.) However, the claim was rejected for being untimely. (Id.) Because Plaintiff did not discover LACMTA was a real party in interest until the commencement of discovery and Plaintiff’s counsel made reasonable attempts to identify the proper parties, the Court finds Plaintiff has also sufficiently demonstrated that the failure to present a timely claim to LACMTA was due to excusable neglect.

Plaintiff filed the instant petition on June 3, 2022. Given the petition was filed within six months after the application was deemed denied, the petition is timely. However, the Court cannot find that the application to file a late claim presented to LACMTA was made within a reasonable time that did not exceed the time period specified in Government Code section 911.4(b). (Gov. Code section 946.6, subd. (c).) Government Code section 911.4, subd. (b) provides that an application to the board to present a late claim must be made within one year after the accrual of the cause of action.

Here, Plaintiff was injured on March 19, 2021. (Comp., p.3.) Plaintiff filed her claim with LACMTA on April 8, 2022, more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action began. Accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under section 946.6. (Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 488 (“When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under section 946.6.”).)