Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00397, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00397    Hearing Date: August 18, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Kevin Hudson, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he is the biological son of Decedent Kevin Hudson, Sr. (“Decedent”), who died in a vehicular collision on December 2, 2021.  Plaintiff alleges that on December 2, 2021, Decedent was lawfully driving his vehicle southbound on the Interstate 5 Freeway in Los Angeles County and that Defendant Valentin Bazeekian negligently owned and operated a motor vehicle in a manner to cause a collision with Decedent’s vehicle, which resulted in his death.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mario Rene Cruz Zeleda was negligently operating and driving a vehicle owned by Defendant Security Paving Company, Inc. in a manner that caused a collision with Decedent’s vehicle, which resulted in his death.

The complaint, filed February 17, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) wrongful death – negligence against Defendants Valentin Bazeekian, Security Paving Company, Inc., Mario Cruz Rene Zeleda, and Nominal Defendant Charlotte Brazille; and (2) wrongful death – dangerous condition of public property against Defendants State of California, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation, California State Transportation Agency, Security Paving Company, Inc., Mario Cruz Rene Zeleda, and Nominal Defendant Charlotte Brazille. 

On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice the 2^nd cause of action for wrongful death – dangerous condition of public property only against Defendants Security Paving Company, Inc. and Mario Rene Cruz Zeleda only.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice the following parties from the complaint: State of California, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation, and California State Transportation Agency.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition for relief from Government Code, § 945.4. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.  

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed a petition for relief from the provisions of Government Code, § 945.4 against the State of California, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation, and California State Transportation Agency (“State Defendants”). 

Government Code § 911.2 provides that a claim relating to a cause of action for death or injury to a person shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.  Here, Plaintiff’s causes of action accrued on December 2, 2021.  Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to present a government claim by June 2, 2022.  Plaintiff did not present the claim by this date against State Defendants.  

            However, Government Code § 911.4 provides that “[w]hen a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after accrual is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.4(a).)  Such application must be presented “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year from accrual and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.4(b).)  On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff presented his claim for damages to State Defendants and also submitted an application for leave to present the claim as a late claim.  (Reed Decl., ¶4, Exs. B and C.)  Plaintiff’s counsel, James S. Reed, states that State Defendants received the claim and application on November 28, 2022, but State Defendants did not respond to the claim or the application.  (Id., ¶5.)  As State Defendants did not respond to the claim or application, the application was deemed denied on January 6, 2023.  (Pet. at p.7; Gov’t Code, § 911.6.)  Mr. Reed states that Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 17, 2023 and dismissed without prejudice State Defendants from the action in response to their June 2, 2023 contention that Plaintiff’s claim was untimely and the complaint could not be filed against them without a Court order granting leave to present a late claim.  (Reed Decl., ¶6.)  Hence, Mr. Reed states that Plaintiff agreed to dismiss them without prejudice and to file this petition.  (Id.) 

            As Plaintiff filed the application to present a late claim with State Defendants on November 22, 2022, the application was timely filed as it was filed within one year from the accrual date of December 2, 2021. 

Plaintiff must then meet the requirements of Government Code § 946.6.  Specifically, Government Code § 946.6(c) provides that: “The 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 that one or more of the following is applicable:

(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 the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.

(Gov’t Code, § 946.6(c)(1).)  “[A] petitioner must show more than his or her failure to discover a fact until too late; the petitioner must establish that in the use of reasonable diligence he or she failed to discover it.”  (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1784.)

            Plaintiff argues that it was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect that Plaintiff’s claim was not presented to State Defendants within required time frame.  In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides his declaration.  Plaintiff states that he is an inmate at California State Prison in Sacramento and has limited access to the use of telephones, computers, and internet.  (Hudson Decl., ¶3.)  He states that he sought the CHP traffic collision report on January 24, 2022, but it took over 9 months to receive the CHP report.  (Id., ¶¶6-7.)  He states that he followed up and contacted CHP about the report on May 16, 2022, but CHP informed him the report was not ready since the subject accident involved multiple vehicles and that he would need a copy of the death certificate.  (Id., ¶¶11-13.)  Plaintiff states that Decedent’s wife (Geneika Hudson) and the probate attorney did not have a copy of the death certificate, so he wrote a letter to the Hall of Records on June 21, 2022 to begin the process of obtaining a copy of the death certificate (which required his father’s social security number and a notary for the documents, which was delayed further for 5-6 weeks by the prison system).  (Id., ¶¶15-16.)  Plaintiff states that the prison provided a notary on August 18, 2022, he completed the documents for the Hall of Records, and obtained a copy of the death certificate on September 9, 2022.  (Id., ¶¶16-17.)  He states that on September 19, 2022, Decedent’s wife went to the CHP office in person to obtain a copy of the traffic collision report, which she mailed to him.  (Id., ¶18.)  Plaintiff states that he did not learn about the underlying facts of the case against State Defendants, including the fact that the accident involved repair work on the I-5 freeway, until September 2022.  (Id., ¶19.)  He then hired an attorney on September 29, 2022 for the wrongful death claims.  (Id., ¶20.) 

            Pursuant to Government Code, § 946.6(c)(1), the Court must evaluate first whether the failure to present the claim in a timely fashion was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and then whether the public entity would be prejudiced in the defenses of the claim.   Here, the Court finds that the requirements of the code section have been met and that Plaintiff timely complied with the requirements.  By way of his declaration, Plaintiff has explained the delay that prevented him from timely bringing his claim to State Defendants.  The accident occurred on December 2, 2021, but the CHP report was not completed until May 13, 2022, which was less than a month before the 6-month deadline to submit a government claim would have expired.  (See Pet., Ex. A [Traffic Crash Report, dated May 13, 2022].)  However, there were more complications as it took several months for Plaintiff to obtain a copy of Decedent’s death certificate and obtain a notary at the prison.  Despite the various barriers to obtaining the necessary documents to submit his government claim against State Defendants, Plaintiff was able to obtain all the necessary documents by September 19, 2022 and he promptly hired an attorney by September 29, 2022 to handle the case.  Counsel then submitted a claim and an application for late claim with State Defendants on November 22, 2022, which was within a reasonable time not to exceed one year from accrual.  The Court finds that Plaintiff made diligent efforts to comply with the government claim requirement by obtaining the required documents, following-up on document requests, investigating the claims upon receipt of the documents, and hiring an attorney. 

The Court notes that the motion is not opposed, and that State Defendants have currently been dismissed without prejudice from this action.  As such, State Defendants have not shown how they would be prejudiced in their defenses of the claim if this motion were to be granted.  The Court notes that though State Defendants are no longer parties to this action at this time, Plaintiff served attorneys for California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation with this motion.  The proof of service for the motion does not show that State of California and California State Transportation Agency were served with this motion.  Although State Defendants have been dismissed from this action, the outcome of the motion may affect their rights.  Thus, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion so that State Defendants are on notice of the motion and have the opportunity to respond or attend the hearing to present arguments. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff Kevin Hudson, Jr.’s petition for relief from Government Code, § 945.4 against State of California, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation, and California State Transportation Agency is continued September 1, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. so that Plaintiff may have time to serve Defendants State of California and California State Transportation Agency with the motion papers.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.