Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCP03055, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCP03055    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Petitioner Margarita Medina moves the Court for relief from the provisions of Government Code section 945.4 to permit Petitioner to proceed on her claims against respondent City of Culver City.  Respondent has not filed an opposition to the petition.

ANALYSIS

Per the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for damages against a public entity must first file claim directly with that entity.  The party may file a lawsuit only if the public entity denies or rejects the claim. (Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.)  Further, an action against a public employee is barred if an action against the employing public entity would be barred by the failure to satisfy the entity claims requirements. (Gov. Code, § 950.2.) The claims presentation requirement provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide whether to pay on the claim.  (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.) 

A party must file a claim based on “a cause of action for death or for injury to person”  within six months, but may apply for an extension of another six months. (Gov. Code, §§ 911.4, 911.2, subd. (a).)   If the Government Claims Program denies the requested extension, the court must grant a petition for relief from the claims filing requirements of the Government Claims Act if the court finds that the petitioner made a late claim within a reasonable time after the cause of action accrued, which may not exceed one year, and that the petitioner’s failure to present a timely claim was due to minority, incapacity or death, or “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect[.]”  (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c).) If the petitioner proves grounds for relief, the burden shifts to the entity to demonstrate prejudice “in the defense of the claim[.]” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).)  

Here, Petitioner’s cause of action accrued on October 6, 2020.  (Declaration of Margarita Medina, ¶ 4(H)(3).)  Petitioner filed an application for leave to present a late claim with Respondent on June 16, 2021.  (Declaration of Girma H. Gebriel, ¶¶ 8-9, Exhibit 1.) 

According to counsel for Petitioner, Girma H. Gebriel (“Gebriel”), after the filing of the petition, Gebriel determined that Petitioner’s claim was nevertheless timely due to a series of Executive Orders issued by Governor Newsome on March 21, 2020, through June 30, 2020.  (Supplemental Declaration of Girma H. Gebriel, ¶ 4.) 

In addition, Gebriel avers that, since the filing of the petition, Petitioner has initiated her complaint against Respondent and has not received an opposition to the petition. (Supplemental Declaration of Girma H. Gebriel, ¶ 6; see also Medina v. City of Culver City, et al., Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2021, No. 21STCV41907.)  And moreover, Respondent has appeared in Case No. 21STCV41907 by filing an answer to Petitioner’s First Amended Complaint on April 4, 2022. 

Accordingly, the Court denies the petition as moot.  The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.