Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2022-01266275, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Arthur Varela
Motion - Other (Petition for Relief from California Code Section 945.4 As to
the County of Orange)
Under the Government Claims Act (Gov’t Code, § 810 et seq.), a person seeking to assert a cause of action for damages or personal injury against a public entity must file a claim with the appropriate public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. (Id., § 911.2, subd. (a).) Under section 945.4, presentation of a timely claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of suit against the public entity. If the six-month deadline for filing the claim is missed, the person may apply to the public entity for leave to file a late claim, provided that the application is made within one year of the accrual of the cause of action. (Id., § 911.4, subds.(a) & (b).)
If the public entity rejects the application, the person may petition the superior court under section 946.6 for relief from the claim presentation requirements. The court must grant the petition for relief if (i) the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the application for leave to file a late claim was made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action and (ii) one of the four criteria listed in section 946.6, subdivision (c) was met. (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777-1778.) Those statutory criteria for relief include “[t]he failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Gov’t Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1); N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 72 (N.G.).) “In deciding a petition for relief from the claim filing requirements, a trial court considers ‘the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition.’ [Citation.]” (N.G., supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 73.).
“Section 946.6 is a remedial statute intended ‘to provide relief from technical rules that otherwise provide a trap for the unwary claimant.’ [Citations.] As such, it is construed in favor of relief whenever possible. [Citation.] The policy favoring trial on the merits is the primary policy underlying section 946.6. [Citation.]” (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276 (Bettencourt).)
However, “[t]he mere recital of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is not sufficient to warrant relief. Relief on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is available only on a showing that the claimant's failure to timely present a claim was reasonable when tested by the objective ‘reasonably prudent person’ standard. The definition of excusable neglect is defined as ‘neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.’ [Citation.] [¶] There must be more than the mere failure to discover a fact; the party seeking relief must establish the failure to discover the fact in the exercise of reasonable diligence. [Citation.] The party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim [Citation] and must establish the necessary elements justifying relief by the preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.]” (Department of Water and Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293.)
When relief is based on counsel’s error, the standard is the same, courts look at “(1) the nature of the mistake or neglect; and (2) whether counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim. [Citations.] In examining the mistake or neglect, the court inquires whether ‘a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances’ might have made the same error. [Citations.]” (Bettencourt, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 276.)
“‘The decision to grant or deny a petition seeking relief under section 946.6 is within the sound discretion of the trial court…’” (N.G., supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 73.)
Petitioner asserts that he should be granted relief from timely claims presentation due to mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. On October 26, 2021, Petitioner was injured while riding a scooter on a sidewalk at 19711 Campus Drive in Santa Ana, California. [Yashar decl., ¶ 4-5 and Exh. 2] Petitioner and his attorney used the “maps” function on Google to determine that the area of the incident was within the City of Santa Ana. [Id., ¶ 3] A timely claim was filed with the City of Santa Ana on April 12, 2022. [Id., ¶ 5] On May 11, 2022, the City of Santa Ana sent a letter denying the claim on the ground that the area was owned, operated, controlled, or maintained by the County of Orange. [Id., ¶ 6] That same day, Petitioner sent a claim to the County. [Id., ¶ 7] The claim was fifteen days late. On May 31, 2022, Petitioner received a denial from the County on the ground that the claim was late. [Yashar decl., ¶ 8] That same day, Petitioner applied for relief to file a late claim. [Id., ¶ 9] On June 13, 2022, the County rejected Petitioner’s application for relief. [Id., ¶ 10]
Here, Petitioner failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Petitioner and his attorney only used Google Maps to determine that the claim should be sent to the City of Santa Ana. However, the use of Google Maps would have also informed Petitioner and his attorney that the location was in the County of Orange. Petitioner and his attorney fail to explain why they chose to only submit his claim to the City of Santa Ana and not the County of Orange. Furthermore, Google Maps would not have informed Petitioner and his attorney as to who owned, controlled, or maintained the sidewalk. Only using Google Maps was not a sufficient exercise of reasonable diligence. Because Petitioner failed to show that his failure to timely submit his claim was due to mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect, the petition for relief from timely claims presentation is DENIED.
Respondent to give notice of ruling.