TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Lataynia Burton’s Petition for Order from [sic] Relief from Claim Statute is DENIED.

Petitioner Lataynia Burton to give notice.

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Respondent City of Los Angeles (“the City”) requests judicial notice of the Traffic Crash Report from the State of California, Department of Highway Patrol for the March 22, 2022, motor vehicle accident upon which Petitioner Lataynia Burton (“Petitioner”)’s claim is based; and Mercury Insurance’s Claim for Damages, received by the City on September 16, 2022, arising from the March 22, 2022, motor vehicle accident upon which Petitioner’s claim is based. The City’s request is DENIED, as there is no basis to take judicial notice of these documents. (See Petricka v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1345, fn. 1 [“it would have been improper for the court to take judicial notice of the police report and, a fortiori, its attachments”].)

Analysis

Petitioner moves the Court for an order relieving her from Government Code section 945.4 after the City denied Petitioner’s request for leave to present a late claim beyond the deadline set forth in Government Code section 911.2.

Government Code section 946.6 allows a party to petition for an order excusing the party from the requirement of timely presenting a government claim after an application for leave to present such a claim is denied. The petition may be granted if three conditions are met: (1) Petitioner establishes she applied for late claim relief within a “reasonable time,” no more than twelve months after the accrual of his cause of action (Gov. Code, §§ 911.4, subd. (b); 946.6, subd. (c)); (2) the failure to timely present the claim to Respondent was the result of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” and Respondent will not be prejudiced in presenting its defense (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1)); and (3) the petition is filed within six months after the application to the board is denied (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b)(3)).

The petition sets forth that Petitioner alleges she was injured on March 22, 2022, when she was driving northbound on the 405 freeway and third party John A. Marasco, who was working for the City and driving his own vehicle, failed to stop, rear-ending several vehicles and causing injuries and damages. (Pet., Ex. 4.) Petitioner submitted an application for leave to file a late claim on November 14, 2022, and the City denied Petitioner’s application to file a late claim on December 14, 2022. (Pet., Ex. 1.) Petitioner’s counsel represents that Petitioner emailed her office on March 25, 2022, that she was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and the claim was not filed within the six-month period because Petitioner did not have a copy of the police report. (Pet., Pearman Decl. ¶ 4; Berry Decl. ¶ 7.) Petitioner’s counsel’s office “found out who the defendant was and mailed out a letter” on June 6, 2022, and counsel then received a copy of the police report outside the six-month period on October 28, 2022. (Pet., Pearman Decl. ¶ 5; Berry Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9.)

“Before a court may relieve a claimant from the statutory tort claim filing requirements, the claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence both that the application to the public entity for leave to file a late claim was presented within a reasonable time and that the failure to file a timely claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293, italics omitted.) “The 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.” (Ibid.)

Put simply, the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner’s application to file a late claim was presented to the City within a reasonable time or that the failure to timely file the claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Petitioner’s counsel concedes that she was aware of third party John Marasco’s identity as of June 6, 2022, and counsel’s office sent a letter on that date. (Pet., Pearman Decl. ¶ 5.) Petitioner’s counsel states that the letter was sent to 200 N. Main 18th Floor in Los Angeles (Pet., Pearman Decl. ¶ 5), such that counsel was aware of the identity and address for the individual purportedly responsible for the motor vehicle accident.

“[E]xcusable neglect is defined as neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. [¶] 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.” (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293, citation omitted.) “The party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim and must establish the necessary elements justifying relief by the preponderance of the evidence.” (Ibid., citation omitted.) A reasonably prudent person with an individual’s name and address would have been able to learn that the individual was an employee of the City without a police report. Notably, Petitioner also provides conflicting information about when she obtained the police report, as she provides a declaration from her counsel stating the report was not received until October 28, 2022 (Pet., Pearman Decl. ¶ 6), but her counsel’s legal secretary states that the police report was obtained on June 2, 2022 (Pet., Berry Decl. ¶ 8). Even if the police report was obtained on the latter date, it is clear that Petitioner knew the third party’s identity and an address at which to contact him. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that Petitioner’s failure to timely file a claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Accordingly, Petitioner Lataynia Burton’s Petition for Order from [sic] Relief from Claim Statute is DENIED.