Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP02482, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP02482 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Case Name: MAXIM
MATEVOSYAN v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No.: 23STCP02482
Motion: Petition for an Order Relieving
Petitioner from Government Code Section 945.4
Moving Party: Petitioner
Maxim Matevosyan
Responding Party: Respondent County of Los Angeles
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Petitioner’s Petition for Relief from
Government Code Section 945.4 is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Maxim Matevosyan is the
owner of a vehicle that was involved in an auto v. auto accident with a vehicle
owned and operated by Los Angeles County Fire Department. Matevosyan’s vehicle was driven by non-party
Heidy Arzumanian. Arzumanian filed a
timely Claim for Damages to Person or Property with the County of Los
Angeles. However, because she was not
the owner of the vehicle the County has taken the position that she is not
entitled to recovery of property damages.
The County has not taken any final action on Arzumanian’s claim and is
currently in settlement negotiations with her.
Upon hearing of the County’s
refusal to compensate Arzumanian for the property damage from the accident,
Petitioner Matevosyan sought to amend Arzumanian’s claim to seek property
damage only and to list him as the owner of the vehicle (the “Amended Claim”). The County rejected Matevosyan’s Amended
Claim. The County then rejected
Matevosyan’s Application for Leave to Present a Claim pursuant to Government
Code §911.4.
In response, on July 17, 2023,
Petitioner Matevosyan filed the instant Petition for Relief (the “Petition”) from
Government Code §945.4. On August 16,
2023, County filed an opposition to the Petition.
On November 3, 2023, the Court
continued the hearing on the Petition from November 20, 2023 to November 28,
2023.
PETITIONER’S
PETITION
Petitioner argues it is entitled to relief
from Government Code §945.4, because he has satisfied all requirements under
Government Code §946.6. Petitioner
argues his Amended Claim was timely, because the County had not yet taken any
action on Arzumanian’s claim. Petitioner
argues any failure to timely file a claim with the County for property damage
as owner of the vehicle was due to excusable neglect. Petitioner argues he reasonably and excusably
believed that the property damage claim would be paid even though Arzumanian
was not listed on the vehicle registration.
Petitioner argues County will not suffer any prejudice if relief from
Government Code §945.4 is granted pursuant to Government Code §946.6. Petitioner argues there has been no final
action on Arzumanian’s claim, nor is there any dispute that County’s vehicle
rear ended Arzumanian.
OPPOSITION
County argues Petitioner was not entitled to
rely on Arzumanian’s claim to seek recovery of property damage suffered by
Petitioner as a result of the accident.
County argues established law holds that where two parties suffer
distinct injuries as a result of government entity, each party must file their
own claim. County argues Petitioner’s
failure to present his own timely claim for property damages from the accident bars
any complaint by the Petitioner. County
argues the failure to understand this requirement was not reasonable or the
product of excusable neglect.
County
argues Petitioner’s failure to timely file a claim on his own behalf was not
the result of excusable neglect. County
argues Petitioner’s failure to understand that he was required to file his own
claim for property damage was inexcusable and unreasonable. County argues
Petitioner’s ignorance of the law was the result of a complete failure to look
up the applicable law. County argues its
claims administrator also informed Petitioner’s counsel on May 16, 2022 that
only the vehicle owner could present a claim for property damage. County argues its letter dated on July 28,
2022 only reiterated this fact. County
argues it will be prejudiced if relief is granted. County will be forced to defend against a
lawsuit with exorbitant fees and costs.
REPLY—None as
of November 22, 2023
ANALYSIS
I. Applicable Law
If
an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied
pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order
relieving the petitioner from the government claims requirement under GC
§945.4. (GC §946.6.) The Court shall grant the petition for relief
if (1) a request to file late claim was submitted to the public entity per GC
911.4 within a reasonable time; (2) that request to file late claim was
rejected per 911.6; and (3) one of the four conditions set forth in GC
§946.6(c) is met:
“(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 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.
(4) 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.” (GC §946.6(c).)
The court
“must” grant the petition under section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1), if the
claimant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the
application to the public entity under section 911.4 was made within a
reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of
action; (2) the failure to timely present the claim was through mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; and (3) the determine the public
entity would not be prejudiced by the granting of the petition. (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d
427, 431-432.)
“Section
946.6 is a remedial statute intended to provide relief from technical rules
which otherwise provide a trap for the unwary claimant. The remedial policies underlying the statute
are that wherever possible cases be heard on their merits and any doubts which
may exist should be resolved in favor of the application.” (Id. at 435.)
The showing
required for relief under CCP §946.6 based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise
or excusable neglect is the same as required for CCP §473(b) relief from a
default judgment. (Ebersol, supra,
35 Cal.3d at 435.) “Excusable neglect is
neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person
under the same or similar circumstances.”
(Id. (petitioner’s failure to file timely government claim was
excusable neglect where she was unaware of the tort claim requirement and
diligently sought counsel during the period which a claim had to be filed).)
As a
“remedial statute,” § 946.6 is to be liberally construed so as to permit
claimants with a recognized excuse to have their cases heard on the merits;
i.e., doubts are to be resolved in favor of granting the § 946.6 petition. (Draper v. City of Los Angeles (1990)
52 Cal.3d 502, 507.) Where
uncontradicted evidence shows adequate ground for relief, the trial court's
denial is reversible as an abuse of discretion.
(Cole v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1369,
1375-1376.) By the same token, a trial
court's denial of relief will not be disturbed on appeal where there is clearly
no competent evidence upon which it could exercise its discretion to grant
relief. (Id.)
II. Application to
Facts
In
order to obtain relief from the claims requirement under Government Code
§946.6, Petitioner Matevosyan must establish that (1) a request to file late
claim was submitted to the public entity per GC 911.4 within a reasonable time;
(2) that request to file late claim was rejected per 911.6; and (3) one of the
four conditions set forth in GC §946.6(c) is met. Petitioner argues GC §946.6(c)(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.” (GC §946.6(c)(1).
County does
not dispute that (1) a request to file late claim was submitted to the public
entity per GC 911.4 within a reasonable time or (2) that the request to file
late claims was rejected per GC 911.6.
The only elements of GC §946.6 relief disputed by the parties is (1)
whether Matevosyan’s failure to present a timely claim to the County for
property damage arising from the accident was due to excusable neglect or
reasonable mistake and (2) whether the County would suffer prejudice if
Matevosyan were relieved of the requirement to file a government claim before
suing the County in civil court.
A. Matevosyan fails to demonstrate that his
failure to file a timely claim was the result of excusable neglect or
reasonable mistake
“A
claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to
personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2
(commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of
the cause of action.” (GC §911.2).
The
accident in question occurred on January 21, 2022. (Petition, Haroutounian Dec., ¶¶2 and 3, Ex.
2.) This is undisputed. The deadline to file a claim with the County
was June 21, 2022.
Heidy Arzumanian,
the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, filed a claim with the
County on May 12, 2022. ((Petition,
Haroutounian Dec., ¶¶2 and 3, Ex. 3.) Arzumanian’s
claim was filed within six months of the accident.
On May 16,
2022, four days after Arzumanian filed her claim, County’s claims administrator
sent her counsel (Davana Law Firm) a letter requesting additional
information. The letter unambiguously stated
that only the owner of the vehicle could present a claim for property
damage: “Please be advised that only the
owner of the vehicle can present a claim for property damage.” (Petition, Ex. 4, Letter from Carl Warren
& Company dated May 16, 2022 to Heidy Arzumanian c/o Davana Law Firm, p. 1
of 11, ¶5.) The letter also requested
that Arzumanian provide a copy of the registration to “confirm ownership of the
vehicle.” (Id.)
Davana Law
Firm is Petitioner’s counsel. When
Davana Law Firm received the May 16, 2022 letter, there was still an entire
month for Petitioner to timely file his own claim for property damage as the
owner of the vehicle. Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel provide no explanation for Petitioner’s failure to file
his own claim with the County for property damage as the owner of the vehicle
and in response to the May 16, 2022 letter.
There is no claim that Petitioner was ignorant of the May 16, 2022
letter or that Petitioner and Davana Law Firm were not in contact at the time or
that Davana Law Firm was not representing Petitioner at the time.
In fact,
Petitioner claims that “[o]n September 9, 2022, Davana Law Firm learned
for the very first time that the property damage claim would not be
paid by the County because Ms. Arzumanian was not the registered owner.” (Petition, 5:21-23.) This is simply not true based on Petitioner’s
own Exhibit 4. County’s claims
administrator made clear in its May 16, 2023 letter to Davana Law Firm that
only the owner of the vehicle would be eligible to recover property
damages. (Petition, Ex. 4, Letter from
Carl Warren & Company dated May 16, 2022 to Heidy Arzumanian c/o Davana Law
Firm, p. 1 of 11, ¶5.)
The County’s
claims administrator emailed Arzumanian’s counsel on September 8, 2023,
reiterating the need to submit the vehicle ownership so that Arzumanian’s
standing to recover property damages could be confirmed. (Petition, Ex. 7.) On September 9, the County claims
administrator confirmed receipt of the vehicle registration and indicated that
Arzumanian could not recover property damages, because she was not the
registered owner. (Id. at Ex.
8.)
Upon
receiving the claims administrator’s September 9 email, counsel sent a letter
in response indicating it was representing Matevosyan, the owner of the
vehicle, and that Arzumanian “hereby amends the above-referenced claim to add
Maxim Matevosyan as a property damage claimant only.” (Id. at Ex. 9.)
Petitioner
fails to demonstrate that his failure to file a timely claim pursuant to
Government Code §911.2 was the result of excusable neglect or a reasonable
mistake. The unambiguous statement in
the claims administrator’s May 16, 2022 letter begs for a response or
explanation from Petitioner’s counsel and Petitioner. Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel fail to
provide any explanation for their failure to act in response to the May 16,
2022 letter.
Moreover, Petitioner
was the owner of the vehicle, not Arzumanian.
Petitioner does not assert that either Arzumanian or Petitioner’s
counsel was ignorant of this fact.
In
addition, the principle that only the owner of the vehicle can recover damages
to the vehicle is fundamental and basic to the question of standing. The issue is not a complex or novel issue of
law.
Counsel’s
attempt on September 9, 2023 to file an “amendment” to Arzumanian’s claim to
include Petitioner’s separate and distinct claim for property damage also ran
afoul of established law governing the claims requirement. “In numerous cases, appellate courts
have held that when, as here, an injured party timely files a claim with a
government entity and another party also injured by the same transaction seeks
to pursue a suit against the government entity without filing a separate claim,
the second injured party may not rely on the claim filed by the original
claimant if the injury suffered by the second injured party was separate and
distinct.” (Nguyen v. Los Angeles
County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 729, 733–734
(emphasis added).)
Petitioner
fails to establish that his failure to file a timely claim under GC §911.2 was
the result of excusable neglect or reasonable mistake. Petitioner’s request for relief from the
claims requirement pursuant to GC §§945.4 and 946.6 is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
III. Petitioner’s
Petition for Relief from Government Code §945.4
For
the reasons stated above, Petitioner Matevosyan’s Petition for Relief from
Government Code §945.4 is DENIED.