Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCP00020, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCP00020    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: C

PEREA v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CASE NO.:  23NWCP00020

HEARING: 4/4/23 @ 1:30 PM

#8

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Perea’s petition for order relieving Arlene Perea from provisions of government code § 945.4 against the State of California Department of Transportation is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Perea petitions the court for relief from the claim filing requirement pursuant to Gov. Code § 946.6.

Any claim against a public entity for personal injury or death must be presented within 6 months of accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code § 911.2.)  Claimant has up to 1 year after accrual of the cause of action to apply to the public entity for permission to file a late claim. (Gov. Code § 911.4.)

“The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application… was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 [one year after accrual of the cause of action]… 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.”  (Gov. Code § 946.6(c)(1).)

“Filing a late-claim Application within one year after the accrual of a cause of action is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a claim-relief Petition. When the underlying Application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, the Court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under Government Code section 946.6.”  (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1779.)

Petitioner tripped on an uneven sidewalk on August 5, 2021 in front of El Atacor Restaurant located at 11156 Whitter Boulevard in the City of Whittier (“the City”).  (Reyes Decl., ¶ 2.)  She filed a timely claim with the City.  The City delayed responding to the claim for four months, only to inform Petitioner that the sidewalk belonged to the County.  Because six months had already passed from the accrual of the cause of action, Petitioner obtained leave of court to file a claim with the County.  The County informed her that CalTrans owned the sidewalk and CalTrans had an agreement with the City of Whittier to maintain it.  Petitioner requests leave to file against CalTrans.  However, Petitioner’s application to file a late claim with CalTrans was filed more than one year from accrual of the cause of action.  Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to grant relief.

The court notes there is an issue whether CalTrans and/or the City of Whitter can be equitably estopped from arguing that a lawsuit suit against them is time-barred.  (See, Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4^th 1023.)  CalTrans is not in the best position to address this issue, however, because it was the City of Whitter that misinformed Petitioner. 

Because Petitioner requests leave to file against CalTrans, not the City of Whittier, the Petition must be DENIED.