Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV16728, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16728    Hearing Date: October 25, 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

            Plaintiff Eddie Herrera (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for relief from the provisions of the Government Claims Act to permit Plaintiff to proceed with his claims against the County of Los Angeles (“County”).  Plaintiff alleges that on June 5, 2021, he was walking in Covina, California when a utility cover he walked over suddenly gave way and he fell through.  (Complaint, ¶ 11.) 

            County opposes the petition and Plaintiff replies to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

1. GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT

Per the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must present a written claim directly with that entity.  (Gov. Code, § 905.)  And under Government Code section 945.4, “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 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.”  (Munoz v. State of Cal. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776 (hereafter Munoz); 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 Government Claims Act. (Gov. Code, § 950.2.) The claim presentation requirement provides a 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.) 

Accordingly, “[a] claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)  “When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.4.)  “The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 946.6, subd. (a).)  “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.”  (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).) 

“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.”  (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).) 

“A petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement under Government Code section 946.6 is a special proceeding.  The court hearing the petition makes an independent determination on the petition.  If the court grants relief from the claim presentation requirement, the petitioner must file a complaint on the cause of action within 30 days after the order granting relief.”  (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 64, citations omitted.) 

“Government Code section 946.6 is a remedial statute intended to provide relief from technical rules which otherwise provide a trap for the unwary. The remedial policy underlying the statute is that wherever possible cases should be heard on their merits.  Thus, a denial of such relief by the trial court is examined more rigorously than where relief is granted and any doubts which may exist should be resolved in favor of the application.”  (Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778, citations omitted.)  “It is the well recognized policy of the law to liberally construe remedial statutes designed to protect persons within their purview, and the modern trend of judicial decisions favors granting relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute.”  (Ibid.) 

1. PETITION FOR RELIEF

            Plaintiff advances the declaration of his counsel, Lina I. Kakish (“Kakish”).  Kakish states in pertinent part as follows:

• On October 19, 2021, Mr. Herrera timely filed a claim against the City of Covina pursuant to Government Code § 945.4 which was subsequently denied. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s claim).

   

• On or around April 15, 2022, in anticipation of filing a complaint to initiate litigation of the matter, photographs of the scene of the incident were presented to an expert.

   

• This expert determined that the utility cover could potentially belong to the County of Los Angeles though there were no visible sign suggesting this.

   

• This information came as a surprise to Plaintiff since his due diligence revealed no indication of the same.

• Because the time in which to file his claim against the County of Los Angeles for this incident had passed, Plaintiff moved quickly for an application for leave to present a late claim pursuant to Government Code § 911.4.

   

• Plaintiff submitted the application on April 22, 2022. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s application).

   

• On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff received notice that his application was denied. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of the Notice of Denial of Claim).

   

• On May 23, 2022, in order to preserve the statute of limitations on his personal injury matter against the City of Covina, Plaintiff filed his complaint.

(Declaration of Lina I. Kakish, ¶¶ 2-9.) 

            In Opposition, County first contends that the petition should be denied under Government Code section 910 because Plaintiff failed to provide the “date, place and other circumstances or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.”  The Court finds the County’s contention to be without merit.  As set forth in Exbibit 2 to the Kakish’s declaration, Plaintiff provided the requisite information.  And whether the County owns or controls the subject property or utility cover is not an issue to determined on a petition under Section 946.6.  That is an issue for another day. 

            Second, the County asserts that the Court should deny the petition because Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.  Here, Kakish declares that she was surprised by an expert’s finding that the subject utility cover may be “belong to the County of Los Angeles” despite Plaintiff’s due diligence which did not reveal what the expert found.  (See Declaration of Lina I. Kakish, ¶ 7, Exhibit 2.)  Despite the County’s assertion, the Court finds that the evidence proffered by Plaintiff is adequate to establish surprise. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the requirements for relief from the claims presentation requirements.  In turn, the Court finds that the County has failed to proffer evidence that in relieving Plaintiff of such requirements the County will be prejudiced. 

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Petition for Relief under Government Code section 946.6 relieving Plaintiff of the requirements of Government Code section 945.4. 

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.