Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02219, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02219, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02219 Hearing Date: September 19, 2024 Dept: C

DUARTE v. SHEPHERD

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02219

HEARING: 09/19/24

Plaintiff SINDY PAOLA RODRIGUEZ DUARTE’s unopposed Petition for Relief from Government Code §945.4 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve a First Amended Complaint naming the City of Los Angeles as a defendant within 30 days.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of September 16, 2024.

This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff SINDY PAOLA RODRIGUEZ DUARTE (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants KYLE HARDY SHEPHERD; AIRPORT VAN RENTAL, INC; and YOUNG HEE KOO KO (collectively “Defendants”) on July 19, 2023.

Plaintiff alleges one claim for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants.

Plaintiff now seeks a Petition for Relief from Government Code §946.6 to permit her to commence and pursue this action against the City of Los Angeles.

Plaintiff argues that she should be excused from the late filing of a claim against the City of Los Angeles under Gov. Code §§946.6(c)(1) for the following reason: “Not disclosed to Petitioner, nor otherwise apparent, either at the scene of the accident, in the California Highway Patrol Traffic Collision Report or, in written discovery was the fact that Defendant Shephard was driving the van while in the course and scope of his employment with the City. This was first disclosed during Defendant Shepherd’s deposition which took place on March 24, 2024.” (Petition 3:10-16.) The Petition was filed on June 11, 2024.

As a prerequisite to filing a claim against a public entity, a plaintiff must substantially comply with the California Tort Claims Statute. 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 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.) Under Gov. Code §945.4, presentation of a timely claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of suit against the public entity.

However, if the injured party fails to file a timely claim, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such claim. (Gov. Code §911.4(a).) If the public entity denies the application, Gov. Code §946.6 authorizes the injured party to petition the court for relief from claim requirements.

Gov. Code §946.6(c) states in relevant part:

“The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more 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 relives the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.”

Plaintiff has demonstrated that her failure to present a timely claim to the City of Los Angeles was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect pursuant to Gov. Code §946.6(c)(1). Here, Plaintiff acted diligently to prosecute this action, and it did not becaome apparent that the City of Los Angeles was implicated in this action until after the deposition of Defendant Shepherd had occurred. Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely claim against the City of Los Angeles meets the standard for excusable neglect.

The Petition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint naming the City of Los Angeles as a defendant to this action. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve a First Amended Complaint naming the City of Los Angeles as a defendant within 30 days.