Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV29193, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29193    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 30

ENRIQUE GARCIA PINA vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

TENTATIVE

The Petition for Relief from Claim Statute is DENIED.

Legal Standard

Under the Government Claims Act, a plaintiff bringing suit for monetary damages against a public entity or employees thereof must first present a claim to the public entity (“government claim”) which must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the public entity. (Government Code §§ 945.4, 950.2, 950.6(a).) To be timely, a government claim for damages must be presented to the public entity within six months of the date the cause of action accrued. (§ 911.2.)

If a plaintiff fails to file a government claim within the six-month period, he or she may apply to the public entity for permission to file a late claim. (§ 911.4.) Such an application must be presented within a reasonable time, and not later than one year after the cause of action’s accrual. (§ 911.4(b).)

If the public entity denies the application for permission to file a late claim, the plaintiff may file a civil petition for relief from section 945.4’s requirement of timely claim presentation prior to suit. (§ 946.6.) The petition must be filed within six months after the application to the public entity is denied or deemed to be denied. (§ 946.6(b).) The petition must show: (1) that an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. (§ 946.6(b).)

The court shall grant relief only if it finds that (1) the application to the public entity for leave to file a late claim was made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after accrual of the claim as specified in section 911.4(b), (2) the application was denied or deemed denied by the public agency pursuant to section 911.6, and (3) one or more of the following is applicable: (a) the failure to timely 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 relieves the petitioner from the requirements of section 945.4; (b) the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was a minor during all of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim; (c) the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time; or (d) the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim. (§ 946.6(c).)

Discussion

Petitioner moves for an order for relief from the claims statute, arguing that due to mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect, Petitioner failed to file a claim against LACMTA within the six-month government tort claims period.

Petitioner filed an application to present a late claim pursuant to Government Code section 911.4 on June 21, 2022. (Fradklin Decl., ¶ 5.) The application was deemed rejected on August 5, 2022. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff filed the instant petition on September 7, 2022. As the petition was filed within six months after the application was denied, the petition is timely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 946.6(b).)

In support of the petition, Petitioner argues that his claim was not filed during the six-month period of Government Code section 911.2 due to mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. At the time of retention, the deadline to submit the government claim forms was calendared as "12/22/2021." Petitioner’s counsel’s staff member Jazmin Ramos was assigned the task of submitting the government claim forms. Government claim forms were timely submitted to the City of Los Angeles, State of California and County of Los Angeles. Due to mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect Jazmin Ramos checked off that the government claims were also submitted to LACMTA. (Fradkin Decl., ¶ 3.) On June 17, 2022, in reviewing the file in preparing of filing suit, it was discovered that LACMTA did not receive a claim form. (Id., ¶ 4.) On June 21, 2022, attorney Igor Fradkin caused to be mailed to LACMTA a 17 claim for damages pursuant to California Government Code §911.4 (Id., ¶ 5.)

First, Petitioner has not addressed whether the late claim was made in a reasonable time under § 911.4(b), as required. Certainly, the claim was made, on June 21, 2022, just prior to the deadline to file a late claim, but the reasonableness of waiting is not addressed. It appears the information that LACMTA did not receive the claim was readily available to Plaintiff since at least December 12, 2021, when the copy of the claim to LACMTA was not included in Petitioner’s file. The reasonableness of discovering the error only just prior to preparing to file suit remains unaddressed. As such, it has not been shown that the claim was made in a reasonable time.

More importantly, Petitioner has not met his burden of proving excusable neglect. “Relief from the failure to timely present a government tort claim is available only if the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence the failure was ‘through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.’” (Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 909-10.) “Excusable neglect is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. A person seeking relief must show more than just failure to discover a fact until too late; or a simple failure to act. He must show by a preponderance of the evidence that in the use of reasonable diligence, he could not discover the fact or could not act upon it.” (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1296.)

Petitioner has not established that he or his counsel could not have timely presented his claim in the exercise of reasonable diligence. Petitioner does not provide any averments regarding what actions he took to pursue his claims against LACMTA within the six-month period from the date of injury, June 21, 2021, to December 22, 2021, the deadline to submit the claim to LACMTA. The general rule is that the claimant must at a minimum make a diligent effort to obtain legal counsel within the six-month statutory period and, once retained, counsel is responsible for diligently pursuing the pertinent facts of the cause of action to identify possible defendants. (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 39, 44-45.) When did Petitioner retain counsel? What did counsel do after he was retained to pursue the facts? Counsel merely avers that the claim was mistakenly not submitted on the date calendared, which was the deadline to present the claim. However, counsel has not explained why his firm decided to file a claim against LACMTA, when the other claims were submitted, who reviews the staff member's work, and why it would wait until the deadline to present the claim to the government. This shows a lack of reasonable diligence in filing the claim.

In short, Petitioner has not met his burden. (Renteria, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 910.) “[I]n the context of reviewing a ruling on a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement, it has been explained that “[t]he mere recital of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is not sufficient to warrant relief.” (Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct., 45 Cal. App. 5th at 1093.) The Court needs more than the fact that a mistake in checking a box was made by a non-attorney that the attorney did not catch until just before the deadline. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Petition for Relief from Claim Statute is DENIED.