Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCP00335, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCP00335 Hearing Date: December 11, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 12/11/23
Case #23CHCP00335
PETITION FOR
RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CODE 945.4
Petition filed on 8/10/23.
RESPONDING PARTY: Respondents County of Los Angeles and
Kevin Alvarado
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order
granting Petitioners relief from the Government Claim Filing Requirements of
Government Code 945.4.
RULING: The petition is granted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioners’ Angelina Bawaan, by and through her Guardian
Ad Litem, Maria Cruz Perez; David Bawaan, Jr., by and through his Guardian Ad
Litem, Maria Cruz Perez; Isaac Bawaan, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem,
Maria Cruz Perez; and Penelope Bawaan, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem,
Maria Cruz Perez (Petitioners) claims are based on a cause of action for
negligence that accrued on 7/1/22, when a Los Angeles County Department of
Child and Family Services caseworker Kevin Alvarado was transporting the four
minor children Angelina Bawaan, David Bawaan, David Bawaan, Jr., and Penelope
Bawaan in a vehicle on the Santa Clarita freeway, where they were involved in a
multi-vehicle collision causing injuries and harm to all of the Bawaan
children. (See Petition, Ex.A - Eiden
Decl. ¶2; Ex.G). Petitioners were minors during the entire period in which the claim
should have been filed. (Eiden Decl.,
Ex.B1-4).
On 7/6/22, Petitioners retained the services of Adamson
Ahdoot, LLP. (Eiden Decl., Ex.C). On 8/4/22, Petitioners presented their
initial claim for injuries and damages to the City of Los Angeles (City)
pursuant to Government Code 911.2. (Id.,
Ex.D). Thereafter, Petitioners’ counsel
realized the claim was filed against the wrong government entity. (Eiden Decl.). On 4/4/23, Petitioners presented applications
to present late claim to the County of Los Angeles (Respondent/County). (Eiden Decl., Ex.E1-4). On 4/17/23, Petitioners received notice that
the applications were denied pursuant to Government Code 911.6. (Eiden Decl., Ex.F1-4).
On 8/10/23, Petitioners filed the instant petition for an
order granting Petitioners relief from the Government Claim Filing Requirements
of Government Code 945.4. On 11/20/23,
Respondent filed and served, by mail, an opposition to the petition.
ANALYSIS
Government Code 946.6 provides, in part:
(a) If an application for leave to
present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section
911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the
petitioner from Section
945.4. The proper court for filing the petition is a superior court that
would be a proper court for the trial of an action on the cause of action to
which the claim relates. If the petition is filed in a court which is not a
proper court for the determination of the matter, the court, on motion of any
party, shall transfer the proceeding to a proper court. If an action on the
cause of action to which the claim relates would be a limited civil case, a
proceeding pursuant to this section is a limited civil case.
(b) The petition shall show each of
the following:
(1) That application was made to
the board under Section
911.4 and was denied or deemed denied.
(2) The reason for failure to
present the claim within the time limit specified in Section
911.2.
(3) The information required
by Section
910.
The petition shall be filed within
six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied
pursuant to Section
911.6.
(c) The court shall relieve the
petitioner from the requirements of Section
945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section
911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified
in subdivision
(b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section
911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable:
(1) 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 if the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of Section
945.4.
(2) 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.
. .
.”
An application to present a late claim must be presented
to the public entity within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the
accrual of the cause of action and must state the reason for the delay in
presenting the claim. See
Government Code 911.4(b).
Government Code 946.6 is to be liberally construed with
any doubts being resolved in favor of the petitioner so that cases may be
decided on their merits whenever possible.
Han (1995) 37 CA4th 552, 558.
Generally, a petitioner who is a minor during the entire 6-month claims
presentation should be granted relief from the claims presentation requirements
as long as their claim was submitted within a reasonable time, not exceeding
one year, after the cause of action accrued.
See Government Code 911.4, 911.6(b)(2); J.M. (2017) 2 C5th
648; Hernandez (1986) 42 C3d 1020.
As noted above, Petitioners were
minors during the entire period in which the claim should have been filed. (Eiden Decl., Ex.B1-4). Also, as noted above, their applications
to present late claims were presented to the County of Los Angeles Board of
Supervisors on 4/4/23, within one year after the accrual of the cause of action
on 7/1/22. (Eiden Decl., Ex.E1-4). The applications stated the reason for the
delay in their presentation was that they were sent to the wrong government
entity due to mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect. Respondent denied each of the applications
pursuant to Government Code 911.6.
(Eiden Decl., Ex.F1-4).
The opposition argues that Petitioners’ counsel’s initial
filing of their claims with the incorrect public entity amounts to carelessness
rather than excusable neglect. (See
Opposition, p.3:15-20). The opposition
does not address whether the incorrect filing amounts to mistake, inadvertence
or surprise. See Government Code
946.6(c)(1). Respondent then argue that
Petitioners failed to act promptly after filing their claim with the wrong
entity since seven months passed from the time Petitioners filed their claims
with the City to when they filed their claims with Respondent. Respondent concludes that based on the
foregoing, Petitioners have failed to establish excusable neglect under
Government Code 911.6 that would require the granting of the petition.
Because Petitioners were minors during the entire period
in which their claims should have been filed and their applications to file
late claims were filed well within a year after their cause of action accrued,
the Court finds that relief from the requirements of Government Code 945.4 is
warranted.
CONCLUSION
The petition is granted.