Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV20989, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff, Aurora Blanco, filed this action against Defendant, City of Los Angeles (“City”), for injuries and damages arising from a trip and fall on an uneven portion of a sidewalk. The subject sidewalk was controlled by Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”).

The alleged accident took place on December 19, 2021. Plaintiff presented the City, a governmental entity, with a claim for the incident on May 19, 2022. The claim was timely filed, however Plaintiff presented the claim to the wrong entity. The City rejected the claim on July 13, 2022.

On January 6, 2023, the City filed an Answer and a cross-complaint against LAUSD.

On January 18, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a claim to LAUSD. On January 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint naming LAUSD as Doe 1.

On February 2, 2023, LAUSD rejected Plaintiff’s claim form for being untimely.

On May 19, 2023, Petitioner filed an application for leave to present a late claim to the Board of Directors for the LAUSD. The application was denied on June 7, 2023.

On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Petition for Relief from Late Government Claim Against the Los Angeles Unified School District Pursuant to Government Code Section 946.6.

Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, a written claim must be presented to a public entity and must be denied or deemed denied before a suit for money or damages may be brought against the public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented. (Gov. Code, § 945.4; Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777.) The claim must be filed within six months. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a); Munoz, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1777.)

When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action 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, subd. (a).) The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application. (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).)

If an injured party who has failed to timely file a claim has submitted a written application to the public entity for leave to present such claim and the application has been denied, the injured party may petition to the court for relief from the claim requirements.¿ A petition pursuant to Government Code section 946.6 must be “filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to section 911.6.”¿ (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b); see also City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 621, 627.)¿¿

The petition shall show each of the following: (1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. (3) The information required by Section 910. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).)

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.

(2)¿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.

(3)¿The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor during any of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim, provided the application is presented within six months of the person turning 18 years of age or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.

(4)¿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.

(5)¿The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during any 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, provided the application is presented within six months of the person no longer being physically or mentally incapacitated, or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.

(6)¿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.

LAUSD requests judicial notice of nine documents and fact propositions. The unopposed requests are GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).)

A petition for section 946.6 relief must show all the following: (1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. (3) The information required by Section 910. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff argues relief from the claim requirement is mandatory because she has satisfied the procedural requirements set forth under Government Code sections 911.4, 911.6, and 946.6. Specifically, Plaintiff argues she did not timely file a claim with LAUSD because Plaintiff mistakenly believed the City owned and controlled the subject sidewalk. Thus, Plaintiff inadvertently filed her claim with the City and not LAUSD.

LAUSD argues the Petition lacks merit for at least three reasons: (1) Plaintiff did not submit her claim to LAUSD within one year after accrual of the cause of action; (2) Plaintiff does not meet her burden of proof to establish LAUSD owned or controlled the subject sidewalk, and relatedly, (3) Plaintiff does not establish her untimely claim is the result of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.

Further briefing is necessary. “When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim. The application shall be presented to the public entity ... within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action ....” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subds. (a)-(b), emphasis added.) “The accrual date for presenting a government tort claim is determined by the rules applicable to determining when any ordinary cause of action accrues. (§ 901.) That date may be postponed under the delayed discovery doctrine. [Citation.] Under this doctrine, a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. [Citation.] A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she has reason to at least suspect a factual basis for its elements.” (S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 712, 717.)

Here, neither party addresses the accrual issue. LAUSD argues the claim accrued exactly one year after the alleged incident occurred. However, LAUSD does not address how Plaintiff’s delayed discovery of LAUSD impacts the accrual analysis. Plaintiff, on the other hand, does not identify the facts or otherwise explain when she learned LAUSD was the proper entity to present her claim and/or how these facts impact the accrual analysis. The Court continues the hearing and orders further briefing on the issue of accrual.

Accordingly, the petition is CONTINUED to November 17, 2023 at 1:30 PM. The parties are directed to file further briefing on the accrual issue. Plaintiff may file a supplemental brief no later than October 27, 2023. LAUSD may file a response no later than November 13, 2023. Supplemental briefing is not to exceed 7 pages.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

[1] LAUSD argues the Petition should be denied because it was untimely and improperly served. However, given that LAUSD was able to submit an opposition which engages in the substance and merits of the Petition, the Court considers the Petition herein.