Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV03856, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

PETITION FOR AN ORDER RELIEVING PLAINTIFF FROM GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIM FILING REQUIREMENTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH SAID REQUIREMENTS

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Del Toro Cervantes (Cervantes or Plaintiff) was traveling on Long beach Avene when he was struck by a vehicle owned by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA). The vehicle was driven by HACLA employee Raul Garcia Bueno (Bueno) while in the course and scope of his employment. As a result, Cervantes sustained injury and damages.

Believing that the HACLA was not a separate entity from the City of Los Angeles (City), Cervantes filed a claim for damages on September 14, 2023 with the City only. [1] The time to file a government claim closed on September 23, 2023. Cervantes then initiated this action against City and Bueno on February 15, 2024. The City denied Cervantes’s claim on February 28, 2024.

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint naming HACLA as Doe 1.

On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an application with HACLA for permission to file a late claim. HACLA did not respond to the application.

Plaintiff now petitions this court for relief from the claim filing requirements 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.

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).)

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff timely submitted an application to HACLA seeking permission to file a late claim on March 14, 2024. It is further undisputed that HACLA did not respond to Plaintiff’s application within 45 days, resulting in a deemed denial of the application. Instead, the issue presented is whether Plaintiff’s failure to timely present a claim to HACLA was the result of excusable neglect.

Plaintiff argues his failure to present a timely claim to HACLA is because Mr. Ohanian “mistakenly, inadvertently, surprisingly and/or with excusable neglect failed to realize that the Defendant HACLA was a separate government entity from Defendant COLA. As such, [he] did not file a separate claim for damages form with Defendant HACLA on or before September 23, 2023, the 6-month date from the date of the accident.” (Ohanian Decl., ¶ 7.)

HACLA takes issue with Plaintiff’s showing of mistake or excusable neglect. It argues that the petition does not describe any effort made by Plaintiff/Petitioner or his counsel to confirm the assumption that HACLA was a part of the City of Los Angeles. HACLA argues Plaintiff cannot claim mistake or excusable neglect on the part of his counsel when counsel fails to demonstrate that he diligently researched the claims.

Here, Plaintiff submits the declaration of his counsel, Sark Ohanian, in support of his claim for relief. Mr. Ohanian states:

“Acting expeditiously, I reviewed this matter in September 2023 and determined that: (1) it involved a government entity (i.e., the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles; and (2) believed that the responsible government entity was Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES ("Defendant COLA") under the mistaken belief that the Housing Authority of Los Angeles was the name of the department within Defendant COLA.”

Plaintiff’s reliance upon the name of the defendant Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles provides a reasonable basis to believe the City of Los Angeles was the proper entity with which to file a claim. True, Mr. Ohanian could have done more but his declaration demonstrates his mistaken belief that the City of Los Angeles was the proper entity and that he mistakenly relied upon the target’s name to determine the filing location. Moreover, after he learned of his error, he acted expeditiously to file the claims and to name HACLA as a defendant.

HACLA correctly cites to authority for the proposition diligence is required. Nonetheless, here, Mr. Ohanian made a reasonable mistake based upon the name of the entity and acted diligently once he learned of his error. Under these circumstances the remedial nature of the statute, Government Code section 946.6, controls.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The City did not indicate Cervantes was filing with the wrong entity.

[2] Plaintiff does not describe how he learned the City of Los Angeles was the wrong entity.