Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02445, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV02445 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Carmen Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
Plaintiff Carmen Rodriguez’s Petition for Order Permitting a Late Claim Against a Government Entity Pursuant to Government Code Section 946.6
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Carmen Rodriguez’s petition and hereby permits Plaintiff’s late claim against Defendant Hacienda La Puente Unified School District under Government Code section 946.6.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury action involving public property. On July 30, 2024, plaintiff Carmen Rodriguez (Plaintiff) filed this action. On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint against defendants County of Los Angeles, Suburban Water Systems, Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (School District) and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for liability for dangerous condition of public property, and premises liability.
On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff petitioned the Court for an order permitting a late claim against a government entity under Government Code section 946.6. On December 3, 2024, School District opposed the petition. On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff replied.
LEGAL STANDARD
Before a suit for damages may be filed against a public entity, a claimant must present a timely written claim to the public entity and the claim must have been acted upon by the board or deemed rejected. (Gov. Code, § 945.4; Munoz v. State of Cal. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777 (Munoz).) A claim relating to a cause of action for injury to person or personal property must be presented to the public entity not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2; Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1777.)
If a claimant fails to present a claim within the statutory period, he may apply “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action” to the public entity for leave to present a late claim. (Gov. Code, § 911.4.) If the public entity denies leave to present a late claim, a claimant may petition the Court under Government Code section 946.6 for relief from the requirements of Government Code section 945.4. (Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1777.)
A petition under Government Code section 946.6 must be “filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b); see also City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 621, 627.) This requirement is mandatory. (Lineaweaver v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 738, 741.)
If the Government Code section 946.6 petition is timely filed, the court may relieve a claimant from the requirements of section 945.4 if it makes certain findings, including: (1) the claimant made a timely application to the public entity for leave to present a late claim; (2) the application was denied; and (3) the failure to timely present a claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect; and/or that the injured person was a minor during the claim period, or incapacitated during the claim period, or deceased prior to the deadline for filing a claim. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c).) In determining whether relief is warranted under Government Code section 946.6, the court considers the petition, any affidavits submitted in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any other evidence presented at the hearing. (Gov. Code § 946.6, subd. (e); Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778.)
The excusable neglect standard assumes that there has been some sort of inattention or carelessness and asks, “whether a reasonably prudent person might have made the same error under the same or similar circumstances.” (Munoz, supra, at p. 1783, citations omitted.) In applying this standard, a court must also examine whether the party or her counsel were “otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.” (Id. at pp. 1782-1783; see also Dep't of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 1288, 1293.)
“Government Code section 946.6 is a remedial statute intended to provide relief from technical rules which otherwise provide a trap for the unwary. The remedial policy underlying the statute is that wherever possible cases should be heard on their merits. Thus, a denial of such relief by the trial court is examined more rigorously than where relief is granted and any doubts which may exist should be resolved in favor of the application.” (Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778, citations omitted.) Because of the remedial character of the statute, “the modern trend of judicial decisions favors granting relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute.” (Ibid.)
“A petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement under Government Code section 946.6 is a special proceeding. The court hearing the petition makes an independent determination on the petition. If the court grants relief from the claim presentation requirement, the petitioner must file a complaint on the cause of action within 30 days after the order granting relief.” (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 64, citations omitted.)
OBJECTIONS
The Court SUSTAINS School District’s Objection Number 9 for lack of foundation and an improper conclusion. The Court OVERRULES School District’s remaining evidentiary objections.
DISCUSSION
Summary of Arguments
Plaintiff indicates that on August 27, 2023, Plaintiff was injured when she fell into an open hole on the road verge in the city of Hacienda Heights, which is an unincorporated city within the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff states that Plaintiff’s counsel mistakenly thought the location was within the county boundaries, and thereby submitted claims to the County of Los Angeles and the City of Industry. In May 2024, Plaintiff indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel received rejection letters in May 2024, in which the County of Los Angeles advised Plaintiff’s counsel that School District controlled the area in question. Plaintiff then indicates submitting the claim to School District, who rejected the claim on June 4, 2024, as being untimely. Plaintiff then indicates having applied on July 10, 2024, for permission to present a late claim against School District, but more than 45 days elapsed without Plaintiff receiving a response, thus denying Plaintiff’s application.
Plaintiff contends the Petition sufficiently states the reason for the failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect. Plaintiff contends the Petition sufficiently contains all information required under Government Code section 910, that the Petition was filed within six months of the denial of the application for leave to present a late claim, and that the application for leave to file a late claim was made within one year of the date of injury and within a reasonable time. Plaintiff further contends School District cannot establish that it would be prejudiced if the Petition was granted.
In opposition, School District contends Plaintiff failed to file a claim or apply for leave to submit a claim within a reasonable time. School District contends Plaintiff failed to present competent evidence explaining why a claim could not have been pursued in a timely fashion, or the actions taken after expiration of the claims filing period. School District contends that Plaintiff’s claims accrued on August 27, 2023. School District contends Plaintiff did not timely file a claim or apply for leave to file a late claim until almost eleven months after the accident and that Plaintiff failed to provide competent evidence explaining the nature of the delay or why she was not able to pursue her claim for nine months until May 23, 2024. School District contends Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration fails to provide any supporting materials to establish diligence in pursuing Plaintiff’s claim against School District, and that there is no competent evidence showing that School District is any involved in the accident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim. School District further contends Plaintiff did not apply for late claim relief to the governing board within a reasonable time, as Plaintiff waited until May 2024 to file the claim July 2024 to apply for late relief. School District contends Plaintiff has not demonstrated her failure to file a claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
In reply, Plaintiff contends School District failed to meet its burden in establishing that it would be prejudiced in defense of Petitioner’s claim. Plaintiff contends School District’s own counsel performed due diligence and believed the subject premises were controlled by the County or the city. Plaintiff further contends School District’s opposition makes multiple misstatements regarding who controlled the area in question.
Analysis
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Petition persuasive. First, School District denied Plaintiff’s claim for relief on the grounds that it was untimely. (Tishbi Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 9; Gov. Code, § 946.6, subds. (b)(1)-(b)(2).) Second, the Petition contained all the information required under Government Code section 910. (Tishbi Decl., Ex. 1; Gov. Code, §§ 910, 946.6, subd. (b)(3).) Third, Plaintiff applied to School District to present a late claim within one year of the accident. (Tishbi Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 10; Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).) Fourth, School District rejected Plaintiff’s application to present late claim by failing to respond to it within 45 days. (Tishbi Decl., ¶ 16; Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (a).) Fifth, Plaintiff filed the Petition within six months of the rejection. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b), hanging paragraph.)
Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Petition adequately demonstrates that Plaintiff’s failure to timely file the claim with School District was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that Plaintiff was otherwise diligent in investigating the claim. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1); Munoz, supra, at pp. 1782-1783.) Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that he mistakenly thought the County of Los Angeles controlled the area in question because it was on the road verge in the city of Hacienda Heights, which is an unincorporated community within the County of Los Angeles. (Tishbi Decl., ¶ 3; see Munoz, supra, at p. 1783, citations omitted [“whether a reasonably prudent person might have made the same error under the same or similar circumstances”].) It wasn’t until Plaintiff received a rejection letter from the County of Los Angeles, almost four months after submitting the claim, that Plaintiff was advised School District controlled the area in question. (Tishbi Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 6.) While the proximity of the school grounds to the area in question might arguably put Plaintiff on notice that School District may control that area, the Court nevertheless does not find this to be a sufficiently unreasonable mistake to make. (See Tishbi Supp. Decl., Exs. 12-13; Munoz, supra, at pp. 1782-1783.) Indeed, Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration also demonstrates that School District’s counsel, in communications with Plaintiff’s counsel, believed that the County of Los Angeles controlled the area in question. (Tishbi Supp. Decl., Exs. 13, 15.) Additionally, policy favors adjudication of government claims on the merits. (Id. at p. 1778.)
Furthermore, School District did not present sufficient evidence demonstrating that it would be prejudiced if the Court grants the Petition, other than to note the amount of time that has passed since the accident. (See Opp., 3:8-12; Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).) The Court does not find enough time has passed to justify denying the Petition, especially given the policy favoring adjudication of these claims on their merits. (Munoz, supra, at p. 1778.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Petition. Since Plaintiff filed this action before filing the Petition, Plaintiff has already satisfied the requirement of filing suit within 30 days of the Court granting the Petition. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (f); (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 64.)
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Carmen Rodriguez’s petition and hereby permits Plaintiff’s late claim against Defendant Hacienda La Puente Unified School District under Government Code section 946.6.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.