Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV04519, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV04519, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Petition for Relief from Claim Filing Requirement Pursuant to California [sic] Code § 945.4

The Court DENIES the petition for relief from claim filing requirement under Government Code section 945.4 without prejudice to re-filing after proper notice to Defendant.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is an auto accident case. On December 31, 2024, plaintiff Jamal Musa Salman (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Foothill Transit (Defendant) and Does 1 to 30, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle, general negligence, and damages for personal injuries against public entities and employees.

On January 15, 2025,[1] Plaintiff filed a petition for relief from claim filing requirement pursuant to California [sic] Code § 945.4. The petition is unopposed.

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 must 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 showing required for relief on the grounds of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect" is the same as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), for relieving a party from a default judgment. (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435.) The petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence the grounds for relief from the claim-presentation requirement. (Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 171, 175.)

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.)

Plaintiff seeks relief from the claim filing requirement of Government Code section 945.4, per Government Code section 946.6, on the grounds that the application to present a late claim was expressly denied, and that Plaintiff’s failure to timely submit a claim to Defendant was due to mistake inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Plaintiff indicates that the underlying accident occurred on December 30, 2022. Plaintiff contends Defendant stated the application for leave to present the late claim was submitted to them on February 16, 2023. Plaintiff contends there has been no prejudice to Defendant.

The Court finds multiple problems with the petition. First, Plaintiff served the petition on Defendant simultaneously with the summons and complaint. (Proof of Service (2/6/25).) If Plaintiff believes the petition is necessary, then the petition is required to be filed as a separate action and thereafter granted, before any complaint is permitted to be filed. Thus, by first filing the complaint and then filing the petition and serving them together was improper and likely confusing to the Defendant. Since Defendant has yet to appear in the action and the time to appear has not yet expired, the Court will deny the petition without prejudice. Indeed, given the effect this petition would have on Defendant’s rights in this matter, Defendant must be given an opportunity to respond to establish any prejudice if the petition is granted.

Second, it is not clear to the Court why the claim is considered late if it was submitted to the agency on February 16, 2023. The complaint and the declaration of Z. Dean Hakkak allege that the underlying accident occurred on December 30, 2022, but the petition and Defendant’s rejection letter indicate the date of the accident was December 20, 2022. (Compl., ¶ MV-1; Petition p. 3, line 4; Hakkak Decl., ¶ 3 and Ex. A thereto.) Either way, Plaintiff ostensibly had until sometime in late June 2023 to present the claim to Defendant. Plaintiff appears to have presented the claim on February 16, 2023, which was within the six-month time limit of Government Code section 911.2, but Plaintiff appears to have presented the claim as an application for leave to present a late claim. (Hakkak Decl., Ex. A.) It is unclear to the Court why Plaintiff presented this as an application for leave to present a late claim when it was still within the six-month time limit of Government Code section 911.2. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)

Third, there is a question as to whether the petition, if needed, is timely. The denial letter submitted with the petition states that the application was submitted on February 16, 2023. An application for leave to present a late claim is deemed rejected if the agency does not respond within 45 days of receiving the application. (Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (c).) Forty-five days after February 16, 2023, i.e., the date Plaintiff submitted the claim to Defendant, was April 3, 2023. Plaintiff then ostensibly had until October 3, 2023, to file this petition. (Id., § 946.6, subd. (b), hanging paragraph.) Plaintiff did not file the petition by October 3, 2023, and did not produce any evidence indicating that Defendant and Plaintiff entered into any written agreement extending the period within which the board was required to act on the application. (Id., § 911.2, subd. (a), (c).) Thus, the Court would appear to be without jurisdiction to even consider the petition. (See Lineaweaver v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 139 Cal.App.3d at 741 [six-month time limit of Government Code § 946.6. is mandatory].)

Fourth, even assuming the Court has jurisdiction to consider the petition, the Court finds substantive defects in the petition. Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (b)(2), requires the petition to show, among other things, the reason for the failure to present the late claim within six months of the accident. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b)(2).) Plaintiff’s petition does not explain the reason why Plaintiff failed to timely present the claim. (Petition, 4:24-28; Hakkak Decl., ¶¶ 3-7, Ex. A.)

Fifth, Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (b)(3), requires the petition to provide the information required by Government Code section 910. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b)(3).) Section 910 requires the following information:

(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.

(d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.

(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.

(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.

Plaintiff’s petition does not provide this information. (See generally, Petition.)

The Court DENIES the petition for relief from claim filing requirement under Government Code section 945.4 without prejudice to re-filing after proper notice to Defendant.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

[1] Plaintiff filed an identical petition on January 8, 2025. (Petition (1/8/25).) It is appears that the notice stated the petition would be heard in Department T of this Court so the Court will assume that is the reason why the second petition was filed on January 15, 2025.