Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV35943, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35943    Hearing Date: September 29, 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 Michael L. Walker, Sr., moves the Court for relief from the provisions of Government Code section 945.4 to permit Plaintiff to proceed with his claims against Respondent County of Los Angeles. Respondent opposes the motion.

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).)  

Per the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for damages against a public entity must first file a 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.) The claims presentation requirement allows the public entity to evaluate the claim and decide whether to pay on the claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.) 

Here, Petitioner seeks an order relieving him from the filing requirement of Government Code section 945.4 on the ground that the failure to file the claim on time was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and (or) excusable neglect.

Petitioner’s counsel attests to the following facts. On October 1, 2020, two incidents happened; Petitioner tripped and fell after stepping on substance in a hallway at Harbor UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California, and then afterwards, fell again after medical personnel failed to secure and stabilize the gurney they were using to transport him to an x-ray room. (Petitioner, filed on August 5, 2022, declaration of Ronald J. Higgins (“Higgins Decl.”), ¶ 2.) When those incidents occurred, Los Angeles was amid the worldwide Covid-19 pandemic. (Higgins Decl., ¶ 3.) However, during the pandemic, it was unclear to counsel whether the six-month deadline requirements of Government Code section 911.2 were stayed or extended. (Higgins Decl., ¶ 4.) In addition to those factors, counsel’s staff turnovers/absences, and heavy schedule, counsel failed to file Petitioner’s government claim on time. (Higgins Decl., ¶ 4.) On September 30, 2021, his office filed and served Petitioner’s government claim (Exhibit 1) and notice of intent to sue (Exhibit 2). (Higgins Decl., ¶ 5.) On October 26, 2021, Counsel was informed that Petitioner’s claim was denied. (Higgins Decl., ¶ 5.) Therefore, Petitioner presents that it was due to the pandemic and his counsel’s law office issues, that caused his counsel’s oversight in failing to file his government claim on time. (Higgins Decl., ¶ 7.)

On July 26, 2022, Respondent County of Los Angeles filed its opposition to the petition, arguing as follows.

First, a timely late-claim application denied by the relevant public entity is a jurisdictional prerequisite for relief for a petition based on Government Code section 946.6. Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition because Petitioner never applied to the County for leave to present a late claim.  (Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare District (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 391, 405 (hereafter, “Simms”) [“‘Filing a late-claim application within one year after the accrual of a cause of action is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a claim-relief petition.’ [Citation.]”].)

Second, even if Petitioner submitted a timely late claim application, his petition does not demonstrate excusable neglect. Petitioner’s counsel argues that the deadline under Government Code section 911.2 was unclear.  However, California issued emergency orders that extended the six-month deadline to present a claim by 120 days, even though the orders did not extend the one-year deadline to apply to present a late claim.  In Coble v. Ventura County Health Care Agency (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 417, 421, the Court of Appeal considered whether the emergency orders that the California governor issued during the Covid-19 pandemic extended (1) the six-month statutory period for presenting a timely claim, and (2) the one-year statutory period for applying for leave to present a late claim. (Id. at p. 421.) The Court held that: “The plain meaning of the unambiguous executive order requires us to hold that the extension applies only to the six-month period for presenting a timely claim.” (Ibid.) In addition, the Court noted that the total extension provided by the emergency orders for the six-month deadline was 120 days.

Third, the Respondent need not show prejudice because Petitioner did not act with excusable neglect.

Here, Petitioner’s cause of action accrued on October 1, 2020. Therefore, he had until July 31, 2021 (6 months + 120 days after accrual) to present his government claim. In addition, he had until October 1, 2021 to apply to the County for leave to present a late claim.  However, instead of presenting his government claim by July 31, 2021 or  applying for leave to present a late government claim by October 1, 2021, Petitioner filed his government claim September 30, 2021. 

Therefore, because Petitioner failed to apply for leave to file a late claim before filing this petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction to relieve Petitioner of the provisions of Government Code section 945.4. (See Simms, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 405 [“Simms’s November 2019 claim-relief petition was filed more than one year after the cause of action accrued, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction to relieve him of the section 945.4 requirement for presenting a timely claim”].)

Notwithstanding the above, even if the Court found that Petitioner had applied for leave to file a late claim on time, “[m]istake of counsel is not a basis for granting relief from the claim filing requirements.”  (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1294, fn. 3.) Further, “[i]n deciding whether the error in failing to timely file the tort claim is excusable, the reviewing court looks to the nature of the mistake or neglect and whether counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.” (Ibid.)  Here, counsel found the deadlines for filing a claim against a public entity during the pandemic confusing. However, counsel has not shown that he was diligent in investigating those deadlines or attempted to file Petitioner’s claim within the 120 days after it accrued.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court denies the Petitioner’s petition for relief from the claims filing requirements of the Government Claims Act per Government Code section 946.6.

Respondent County of Los Angeles shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.