Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00005963-CU-PT-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 23, 2024

04/25/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Petitions - Other Hearing on Petition 37-2022-00005963-CU-PT-CTL ADAMS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Hearing, 01/29/2024

The Petition (ROA # 43) of Petitioners CAMERON ADAMS, KEVIN DAVID AYALA, IVAN NOE JUAREZ CRUZ, JACOB FLETCHER, JOVANTE JOHNSON, JAVIER MACIAS, FRANK PEREZ REYES, GABRIEL ANDREW RODRIGUEZ, FRANK SMITH, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, SR., ANTHONY WILLIAMS, JR., JOVANTE WILLIAMS and NIKO WILLIAMS ('Petitioners') for an order for leave to submit late government torts claims, is, on the Court's own motion, CONTINUED to Friday April 26, 2024 at 9:00 AM in D 73.

The Petition will be HEARD.

The Court provides the following analysis to focus the oral argument.

Petitioners' Request (ROA # 48) for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court takes judicial notice of Exh's '1, 2, and 5' and the date only on which Exh. '4' was filed with the Court; otherwise, the Request is DENIED.

If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied because it is not timely, 'a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4.' Gov. Code 946.6(a).

Such a petition may be granted if '[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.' Id. at (c)(1).

A jury trial is not permitted in a 'special proceeding' for an order under section 946.6 relieving a petitioner from the requirement that a timely claim be presented to a public entity. County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (1974) 42 Cal. App. 3d 135, 139-141.

As discussed in Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare District (2022) 80 Cal. App. 5th 391, 397, 398, the Court is empowered to adjudicate whether petitioner actually submitted a timely claim.

On the other hand, this determination may also be made in the context of a separate action (the 'belt and suspenders' approach). Id. at 398.

'We conclude, therefore, that where the analysis does not rest on disputed issues of fact better Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083191 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ADAMS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00005963-CU-PT-CTL postponed for determination by a jury, 'the issue of timely filing of a claim may be determined in a claim-relief proceeding.' ([Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 702, 711].)' Id. at 399.

In this case, Petitioners have made a sufficient offer of proof regarding circumstances establishing that the failure to present a timely claim resulted from 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.' See Opening Brief at page 9, line 18 – page 15, line 3.

However, this issue may not need to be litigated if the tort claims submitted to the City are found to be timely (e.g., after addressing issues of accrual, delayed discovery, equitable tolling, etc.).

Petitioners argue the issue of timeliness will be litigated in related actions that are currently pending.

These circumstances give rise to three potential procedural avenues. The Court would like the parties to address the advantages and disadvantages of each one.

First, the Court could schedule an evidentiary hearing in which it will receive and weigh live testimony and evidence. This would essentially amount to a bench trial on the substantive merits. As alleged in the Petition, the trial would address whether the claims are timely and, if not, whether Petitioners should be relieved from the requirements of section 945.4 (necessity of submitting written claim).

Second, this Court could address the substantive merits of this action, but instead via the submission of declarations and lodged documentary evidence. This would be similar to the evidence submitted on a summary judgment motion, except that the Court would necessarily be tasked with weighing the credibility of the evidence.

Third, this action could be stayed pending resolution of the timeliness issues in the currently pending related actions.

The first procedural avenue is problematic because it could result in inconsistent rulings and judgments if the same issues are currently being litigated in the related actions. This avenue is also not preferred from the standpoint of efficiency and economy, and because this Court should not usurp the decisions reached by one or more juries in the related actions.

The second avenue presents the same problems as are discussed above. In addition, it may be difficult and unfair to resolve complicated factual issues in the absence of live testimony.

A stay of these proceedings appears to make the most sense depending on whether the related pending actions will, in fact, resolve the timeliness issues that are at issue in this action. To the extent one or more of the claims are found to be timely, this would obviate the need to address the relief sought via this Petition. However, the propriety of a stay also depends on the probable length of the stay and any prejudice to the parties that will result from a stay of this action.

Finally, Petitioners are permitted leave to file and serve an amendment to the Petition within twenty (20) days of this hearing correcting the legal name of Gabriel Andrew Rodriguez in paragraph 9 of the Petition.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083191