Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCP00445, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCP00445    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 7, 2024                                        TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         KELSEY CHAPMAN, an individual, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation;.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCP0045

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 954.4

MOVING PARTY:               Petitioner Kelsey Chapman

RESPONDING PARTY:      County of Los Angeles

SERVICE:                              Filed October 18, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Petitioner seeks relief from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Petitioner’s claim she was injured by a hazardous and negligently maintained roadway while riding on her moped in a reasonable manner.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Petitioner’s petition for an order for relief from the requirements of Government Code section 945.4 is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

            Petitioner seeks relief from Government Code section 945.4.

            “The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof based not only on tort liability, but on any claim for ‘money or damages.’ ” (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374.)

Petition

Petitioner provides that on May 4, 2022, Petitioner was driving her moped in a reasonable and foreseeable manner when she encountered the uneven and hazardous Subject Roadway, at the intersection of Lake Avenue and New York Drive which caused Petitioner to lose control of her moped, fall, and slide with her moped before colliding with a parked vehicle.  (Petition at pp. 2: 6-9, 4:12-14, Ex. G.)  As a result, Petitioner sustained serious injuries.  (Id. at ¶ 2.)

On April 17, 2023, Petitioner made a written application to Respondent for permission to file a late claim in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 911.4.  (Petitioner ¶ 5, Ex. A.)

First Submission of Claim

On August 31, 2022, Petitioner’s attorney filed a claim for damages with the County of Los Angeles (“County”) via FedEx.  (Petition at p. 3:1-2, Ex. C.).  On September 8, 2022, Carl Warren & Company deemed Petitioner’s claim for damages insufficient. (Id. at p. 3:4-5, Ex. D.)

Second Submission

On September 22, 2023, Petitioner refiled her claim for damages with the County of Los Angeles via FedEx.  (Id. at p. 3:6-7, Ex. E.)   On September 23, 2022, Carl Warren & Company rejected the claim for damages maintaining that Petitioner’s claim for damages was insufficient, but then also stated that if Petitioner were to file a lawsuit, it reserved the right to defend the lawsuit on the basis that Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements for presenting a timely claim.  (Petition at p. 3:8-12, Ex. F.). 

Third Submission

On October 25, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel refiled her claim for damages a third time via FedEx. (Petition at p. 3:13-14, Ex. G.)  On October 27, 2022, Carl Warren & Company again deemed Petitioner’s third claim for damages insufficient.  (Id. at p. 3:15-16, Ex. H.)

Thus, Petitioner amended her claim for damages twice in an attempt to cure Respondent County’s alleged deficiencies.  (Petition at p. 3:18-19.)  However, the County maintained the following reasons for insufficiency: “The claim is vague as to the circumstances of the alleged occurrence or transaction giving rise to damage or injury; The claim is vague as to the place of the alleged occurrence or transaction giving rise to damage or injury; the claim does not specify the injury or damage.”  (Id. at p. 3:19-23, Exs. D, F, and H.)

Petitioner’s claim for damages provided Petitioner was traveling through the intersection of Lake Avenue and New York Drive when the warped, uneven, and broken pavement caused her motor scooter to overturn. (Petition at p. 4:12-13, Ex. G.)  Petitioner further stated in her claim that her damages “include physical, mental, and emotional damages”.  (Id. at p. 4:17-18.)

Petitioner’s application to file a late claim was filed within one year after the accrual of the cause of action (The cause of action accrued on May 4, 2022, and Petitioner made her application to file a late claim on April 17, 2023).  (Petition at p. 4:23-26.)

Government Code section 946.6 subdivision (c)(1) provides that “[t]he court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and . . . [t]he 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 the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.”

Opposition

On February 29, 2024, Respondent County filed their Opposition, asserting that the Petition should be denied because Petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in her failure to submit a sufficient claim within six months of the incident.  (Opposition at. p. 2:17-18.)  County further argued that Petitioner’s failure to file a sufficient claim within six months of the accrual of the cause of action was not the result of excusable neglect, mistake, inadvertence, or surprise.  (Id. at p. 3:19-22.)  County reasoned that “inexcusable neglect occurs when the claimant’s failure to present a timely claim results from the claimant’s lack of diligence. Petitioner must show that her failure to present a timely claim resulted despite her reasonable diligence . . .”  (Id. at pp. 4:27-28 -5:1-2.) 

Deficiencies

In addressing the specific deficiencies of Petitioner’s three submitted claims, the County argues that the (1) August 31, 2022 claim was insufficient because it was “too vague as to location of the alleged dangerous condition and does not specify the injury. (See Petition Exhibits C and D.)”  (Opposition at p. 6:9-10.) (2) The September 22, 2022 claim does attempt to state the injuries but fails to specify the location of the dangerous condition. (See Petition Exhibit E) It merely states there is a "dangerous condition on Lake Avenue." (Id.) In addition the County cannot confirm this claim was ever submitted.  (Id. at p. 6:11-15.)  Finally, (3) the third claim on October 25, 2022 claim “still fails to identify the precise location of the dangerous condition.  It merely states it is at the intersection of "Lake Avenue and New York Drive." (See Petition Exhibit "G”.)  It does not describe where on the intersection the dangerous condition is located. It also fails to disclose the street of travel and direction of travel where the accident occurred.  This makes it impossible for the County to investigate the exact location of the alleged dangerous condition.”  (Id. at p. 6:17-23.)

Prejudice

Lastly, the County argues it would be prejudiced by the granting of the Petition because Petitioner’s denied claim resulted in the County not engaging in an early investigation and not identifying potential witnesses, inspecting the incident location, or considering early settlement of Petitioner’s claim.  (Opposition at p.7:15-18.)  Thus, the County argues it will be prejudiced against defending itself. (Id. at p.7:11.)

Reply

On March 11, 2024, Petitioner filed her Reply Brief, arguing that (1) Petitioner did allege the location of the incident and injury with specificity in her original claims; and (2) County will not be prejudiced by not having conducted an earlier investigation. 

Firstly, Petitioner addresses County’s contention that Petitioner did not specify the street on which she was travelling.   On Petitioner’s original claim form submitted on August 31, 2022, the claims reads under box number 7 of “Respondent’s Claim for Damages” that the damage or injury occurred “on Lake Avenue in Alta Dena, California and New York Drive, in Alta Dena, California.  Petitioner’s claim also states that a dangerous road condition existed on Lake Avenue. (See Exhibit “C” of Petitioner’s Petition).”  (Reply at p. 2:16-25.)  Additionally, Petitioner states provides that her October 25, 2022 claim form stated “Ms. Chapman was traveling through the intersection of Lake Avenue and New York Drive when the warped, uneven, and broken pavement caused her motor scooter to overturn.” (See Exhibit “G” of Petitioner’s Petition).  (Id. at. pp. 2:27-28 – 3:1-2.)

Secondly, Petitioner addresses County’s argument that it will be prejudiced.  Petitioner reasons that Respondent was given the opportunity to investigate the claims beginning from the first date a claim was filed.  (Reply at p. 3:10-12.). Moreover, County may still engage in discovery and investigate the location.  (Id. at 3:16-17.)  Lastly, if any repairs took place at the location of the incident, Respondent County will be in possession of such records, as they own the roadway of the incident.  (Id. at 3:17-21.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated diligence in the timeliness of her first and original claim filed on August 31, 2022. Thus, Petitioner need not demonstrate excusable neglect because Petitioner did not neglect to attend to the time-sensitive nature of her claim for damages.  The Court also finds that by providing the cross streets of the accident, (Lake Avenue and New York Drive), Petitioner stated the location of the incident with sufficient particularity such that County would have had the opportunity to appropriately and timely investigate the location, had it chosen to.  Moreover, the Court agrees that County still has the opportunity to investigate the dangerous conditions and that if the dangerous conditions have since been remediated, the County will either already possess such records or be able to easily ascertain such records.  Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated diligence in her efforts to bring a timely claim.

Petitioner has met the requirements of section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1).

CONCLUSION

            Petitioner’s petition for an order for relief from the requirements of Government Code section 945.4 is GRANTED.

                        Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   May 7, 2024                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org