Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01730, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01730 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: A
23CMCV01730
Bernadette Jenkins v. City of Compton
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
commenced this action for injuries arising from personal injuries resulting
from a fall on June 18, 2022, on an uneven sidewalk that was in a dangerous
condition. Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence and premises liability.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
applied to the Defendant, City of Compton, (“Defendant”) for leave to file a
late government claim based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect. Although Plaintiff’s counsel had a system in place for opening files
and setting up necessary deadlines, Plaintiff’s counsel’s intake employee,
Angela Sakariasen, neglected to electronically check the appropriate box to
indicate that a government entity was involved, and therefore, no reminders
were triggered for the six-month deadline to file a government claim.
Plaintiff
submitted an application for leave to file a late claim with the City who
received it on May 30, 2023. The City did not respond to the application.
Accordingly, the application was deemed denied. Plaintiff filed this action on
October 25, 2023, before the one-year deadline expired from the date the
application was deemed denied. Plaintiff contends Defendant did not suffer any
prejudice.
In
opposition, the City argues that Plaintiff did not submit her application to
file a late claim within one year from the date the action accrued, (June 18,
2023). Plaintiff has not established the reasons for the delay.
In
reply, Plaintiff argues that the opposition was untimely filed and should be
stricken. Plaintiff has established that the late claim application was filed
within a reasonable time, eight days after Plaintiff’s counsel discovered the
failure to file a government claim within six months.
III.
DISCUSSION
The Court has considered the City’s late
opposition filed on December 11, 2023, although it was due on December 6, 2023
(nine court days before the hearing). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd. (b).) The Court has discretion to consider
late papers in favor of the strong policy favoring disposition of the case on
the merits. (Kapitanski
v. Von’s (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32). [“Judges are well aware of the
unnecessary burdens placed on courts and counsel when strict compliance with
local procedural rules results in the expenditure of unnecessary time and money
for the preparation of later section 473 motions.”]. Plaintiff has not shown
any prejudice resulting from the late filing. (Id.) The Court has
considered Plaintiff’s reply to the late opposition.
Since Plaintiff
brings these claims against a government entity, Plaintiff must present a personal
injury claim to the entity within six months after accrual of the cause of
action. (Gov.
Code, § 911.2.) Plaintiff did not comply. (Decl. of Sark
Ohanian, ¶ 9.) Under those circumstances, Plaintiff can seek leave from the
public entity to file a late claim, to be filed within a reasonable time not to
exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov.
Code, § 911.4 (subd. (b).)
Plaintiff’s accident occurred on June 18,
2022, according to the complaint. Therefore, the late claim application must have
been submitted to the City no later June 18, 2023. Plaintiff served the
application for late claim on May 25, 2023. (Zuckerman Decl., 1.) Thereafter,
the board was required to act within 45 days, or the application is deemed
rejected. (Gov.
Code, § 911.6 subd. (a), (c).) Plaintiff states that the
board has not yet responded to the late claim application. (Ohanian Decl, ¶
17.) Accordingly, the late claim was deemed denied on July 10, 2023, since the
45th day was a Sunday.
Plaintiff may petition to the Court for relief
from claims filing requirements within six months after the late claim
application is deemed denied by submitting a copy of the late claim application
and demonstrating that the failure was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect, “unless the public entity can establish it has been
prejudiced.” (Gov.
Code, § 946.6, subd. (c).) The six-month deadline to petition
the court has not yet expired (January 10, 2024.) Therefore, this petition is
timely filed.
Plaintiff has established by a
preponderance of evidence that the failure to timely file a claim with the City
was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Department
of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82
Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293.) The standard for “excusable
neglect” is the same as that under Civil Procedure, section 473. The
misconception must be reasonable, and Plaintiff must show she failed to
discover the error despite the exercise of reasonable diligence. It is not
enough to show that Plaintiff discovered a fact too late; Plaintiff must show
that in the use of reasonable diligence, Plaintiff failed to discover the
mistake. (Shank
v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 152, 157.)
Plaintiff must show she acted reasonably
and that the “neglect [] might have been the act or omission of a reasonably
prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.” (Department of
Water and Power at 1292.) A “mistake” is defined as circumstances under
which "a person, under some erroneous conviction of law or fact, does or
omits to do some act which, but for the erroneous conviction, he would not have
done or omitted. It may arise either from unconsciousness, ignorance,
forgetfulness, imposition or misplaced confidence." (Salazar
v. Steelman (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 402, 410.) The
statute is to be liberally construed. Only “very slight” evidence is necessary
to grant relief. (Elston
v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.)
Moreover
“because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any
doubts” must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (Id. at
234.)
Plaintiff has established by a
preponderance of evidence that her counsel exercised due diligence by
establishing an electronic system to alert counsel of forthcoming deadlines
with respect to government claims as a result of post-pandemic conditions. (Ohanian
decl., ¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s staff neglected to check the appropriate
box, which would have populated the ensuing deadlines for a case against a
government entity. (Ohanian decl., ¶ 9.
In Flores
v. Board of Supervisors (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 480, the
court of appeal reversed a trial court’s order denying relief from claims filing
requirements finding that “[w]hile not every mistake of an attorney constitutes
excusable neglect (see, for example, cases cited in 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure
(1954) 2108), calendar errors by an attorney or a member of his staff are,
under appropriate circumstances, excusable." (Flores at 483.)
Here, Plaintiff established that despite
diligent efforts to develop an electronic system for the intake of files and
calendaring deadlines, a crucial box was not checked, due to the mistake of
counsel’s staff. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted her late claim application within
a reasonable time on May 25, 2023, after counsel discovered the mistake on May
22, 2023. (Ohanian decl., ¶ 11.)
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of
evidence that all requirements for relief have been met. Defendant has not
shown any prejudice resulting from Plaintiff’s late application. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.