Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCP00345, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCP00345, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCP00345 Hearing Date: February 20, 2024 Dept: C

Katrina Sherry Williams vs Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, et al

Case No.: 23NWCP00345

Hearing Date: February 20, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Katrina Sherry Williams’s Petition for Relief to Permit Petitioner to File a Complaint Against Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sean Ryan Leake is GRANTED.

Petitioner to give Notice.

Background

Petitioner Katrina Sherry Willliams (“Petitioner”) seeks relief from the Tort Claims Statutes against the County of Los Angeles (“Respondent”). Petitioner alleges that on June 8, 2022, she was a passenger in a blue Toyota Corolla that was involved in a motor vehicle collision with a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department emergency vehicle driven by Sean Ryan Leake during the course and scope of his employment.

Legal Standard

Prior to filing a suit against a public entity, a plaintiff must comply with the Government Tort Claims Act, which states, in part: “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . .” (Gov. Code, § 945.4)

A claim for death or injury to person or personal property shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) When a claim required 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 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. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (a); Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777.) The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).)

The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 and grant the petition under Section 946.6, subdivision (c) if the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence 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 and was denied or deemed denied, and that one or more of the following is applicable: (1) the failure to present the claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim, (2) the person who sustained the injury was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for presentation of the claim, (3) the person who sustained the injury was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 and failed to present a claim by reason of that disability, or (4) the person who sustained the injury died before the expiration of the time specified in Section 911.2. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c); Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778.) A petitioner may not successfully argue excusable neglect when she fails to take any action in pursuit of the claim within the six-month period. (Id., at 1778-1779.)

Discussion

Petitioner contends that her failure to present a timely claim resulted from excusable neglect. Specifically, Petitioner argues that not having a copy of the police report prevented her from presenting her claim within six months of the accrual of her cause of action.

Respondent argues that Petitioner’s s failure to present a timely claim was due to her own failure to exercise ordinary due diligence and Respondent would be prejudiced thereby,

Counsel for Petitioner argues he needed a police report to identify the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department employee involved in the collision. On August 4, 2022, Counsel made a written request for the report. (Freij Decl., Ex. 2.) On August 18, 2022, Counsel called the Sheriff’s station to get a status on the completion of the report. A secretary by the name of “Kathy” advised she could not locate the report but would continue her efforts. On September 15, 2022, Counsel called the Sheriff’s station again and was forced to leave a voicemail. On October 7, 2022, Counsel called the Sheriff’s station and was not able to get a hold of anyone and was forced to leave a voicemail. On October 28, 2022, Counsel called the Sheriff’s station and again had to leave a message with the secretary. On November 17, 2022, the check that was sent on August 4, 2022 was cashed (Freij Decl., Exhibit 3) On December 6, 2022, Counsel called and left a voicemail with the Sheriff’s station. On December 15, 2022, Counsel called and left a voicemail with the Sheriff’s station. On December 29, 2022, Counsel was finally able to get a hold of an employee and was given an alternative number to call – (562) 949-2421 ext. 5505 (Irma). On December 29, 2022, Counsel called “Irma,” but no answer. On January 23, 2023, Counsel called Irma and was advised that she was not in but a message would be relayed to her. On January 24, 2023, Counsel was able to speak with someone believed to be Irma who advised the police report was ready and was sent to Counsel’s business address at 2350 SE Bristol Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660.

After receiving the report, counsel immediately filed a public entity claim. (Freij Decl., Ex. 4.) However, to satisfy § 911.2, Petitioner should have served the claim form upon the public entity by December 8, 2022. On February 8, 2023, the claim was rejected “because it was not presented within six (6) months after the event or occurrence as required by law.” (Freij Decl., Ex. 5.) Upon receipt of the denial of the late claim, Counsel attests he immediately filed an Application for Late Claim Relief with the Public Entity on February 28, 2023. (Freij Decl., Ex. 6.) On March 13, 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors denied Petitioner’s Application for Late Relief. (Freij Decl., Ex. 7.) This Petition was filed on August 21, 2023.

Petitioner’s application for leave to present the late claim was filed on February 28, 2023, within one year of the accrual of the cause of action, and the application was denied by the Board on March 13, 2023. Petitioner filed this Petition on August 21, 2023, within the six-month deadline to file a petition for relief.

The Court finds that Petitioner’s failure to file a claim within six months of the accrual date was due to excusable neglect and Respondent would not be substantially prejudiced thereby. While County was unable to conduct an early investigation, there is no indication it cannot now conduct an investigation, or that key pieces of evidence are unavailable.

Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED.