Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV20989, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20989    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: 27

.  

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

The case is here after the Court previously requested additional briefing on the issue of “accrual.”  Both parties have filed briefs as requested.

The Court, by this reference, hereby incorporates the October 13, 2023 Tentative Order provided in this case.  That Order sets forth the statutory scheme applicable in the case and, as such, that scheme is not repeated here other than through incorporation by reference.

II.          ACCRUAL

The Court requested additional briefing on accrual because that appears to be the deciding issue here. 

“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.]”   (S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 712, 717.)

Plaintiff’s briefing, relying on jury instructions which refer to cause of action elements that reference a defendant, takes the position that a cause of action does not accrue until a particular defendant is identified. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief at 4. Defendant’s briefing takes the position that accrual occurs on the date a cause of action arises, without regard to the specific defendant.  Defendant’s Supplemental Brief at 3.  Defendant’s Supplemental Brief at 3.  Neither party provides the Court with any specific case in which the issue of accrual is deemed to depend on identification of the particular defendant.  Based on the language in the statutory scheme that refers simply to the accrual of a cause of action and not to identifying the specific entity liable for that cause of action, as well as the language in S.M v. Los Angeles, supra., the Court is inclined to find that the claim here accrued on the date of the accident and that it does not have a basis to grant petitioner relief.  That said, the Court wants to hear argument in this matter.