Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCP04154, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP04154    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 14, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Petition for Leave to File Late Government Claim

Moving Party: Petitioner S.C. by and through his GAL, Sergio Cardenas, Sr.

Responding Party: Respondent State of California

T/R:     THE PETITION IS GRANTED.

            PETITIONER TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

Prior to filing a suit against a public entity, a plaintiff must comply with the Government Tort Claims Act, which states, in part: “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 therefor 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) 

If an injured party who has failed to timely file a claim has submitted a written application to the public entity for leave to present such claim and the application has been denied, the injured party may petition to the court for relief from the claim requirements.  (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777.)  The court must grant the petition under Government Code section 946.6(c) if the claimant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence the application to the public entity was made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action, and that 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.  (Id., at pp. 1777-1778; Gov. Code § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).)  Mistake of law based solely on ignorance of the six-month claim requirement is not enough.  (Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778.)  A petitioner may not successfully argue excusable neglect when she fails to take any action in pursuit of the claim within the six-month period.  (Id., at 1778-1779.) 

Petitioner moves for leave to file a late government claim against the State of California. Petitioner, a mentally disabled adult represented by a GAL, alleges that the State, through the California Department of Health Services and California Department of Social Services, wrongfully confined Petitioner to a locked mental health hospital for three years after he was medically ready for discharge.

Petitioner reached the age of majority on June 20, 2020. Petitioner was released from the hospital on February 9, 2021. The Court appointed a GAL for Petitioner on July 19, 2021. Petitioner filed a government claim on September 30, 2021. Petitioner applied for leave to file a late claim from the State; the State denied the application.

Gov. Code § 911.6(b) provides “[t]he board shall grant the application [to file a late claim] if one or more of the following is applicable:… (4)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.” A party must bring an application to file a late claim no later than one year after the date of injury. (Gov. Code § 911.4(b).)

Petitioner is mentally incapacitated. A GAL capable of bringing civil claims on Petitioner’s behalf was appointed on July 19, 2021 and a claim was presented two months later, on September 30, 2021. Petitioner presented the claim within one year of Petitioner’s February 9, 2021 release, the last day of Petitioner’s injury. This is sufficient to show entitlement to file a late government claim.

In opposition, the State asserts that Petitioner served the claim on the wrong entity. Petitioner served the claim on the CDHS and CDS; the State represents Petitioner was required to serve the claim on the Department of General Services. In reply, Petitioner presents evidence that DGS was in actual possession of the claim on October 12, 2021. This is sufficient to comply with Gov. Code § 915(e).

The petition is GRANTED.