Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV43028, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43028    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

ISABEL RIVERA CORTES, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

CITY OF LYNWOOD, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV43028 (R/T Petition 23STCP03116) 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR ORDER PERMITTING A LATE CLAIM  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 20, 2024 

 

I. Background 

On November 22, 2021, plaintiff Isabel Rivera Cortes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant City of Lynwood (“City”) and Does 1 to 20 for damages arising from riding a city bus. Plaintiff alleges that on January 22, 2021, she was a passenger on the City’s bus when the bus abruptly stopped, causing Plaintiff to hit her forehead. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amendment to complaint naming PCAM, LLC as Doe 1, and then filed a dismissal of PCAM, LLC on March 30, 2023.  

Plaintiff now seeks relief from the requirements of Government Code §§ 945.4 and 945.6 and petitions for an order permitting her to file a late claim against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) pursuant to Government Code § 946.6.   

LACMTA opposes the petition, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  

 

II. Relief from Failure to File Timely Claim 

Pursuant to Government Code section 945.4: 

 

Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, 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 in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor 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, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division. 

 

A tort claim for money damages against a public entity must be filed with the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)  “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.)  “The timeliness of such actions is governed by the specific statute of limitations set forth in the Government Code, not the statute of limitations applicable to private defendants.”  (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1267.)  

“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(a).)  “The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.4(b).)  “The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board. The claimant and the board may extend the period within which the board is required to act on the application by written agreement made before the expiration of the period.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.6(a).)  “If the board fails or refuses to act on an application within the time prescribed by this section, the application shall be deemed to have been denied on the 45th day or, if the period within which the board is required to act is extended by agreement pursuant to this section, the last day of the period specified in the agreement.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.6(c).) 

 

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. 

 

(Gov. Code, § 946.6(a).)   

“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(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 [within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action] and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that … 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(c)(1).)  A party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.  (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276.) 

Accordingly, pursuant to Gov Code §946.6(c), the Court is required to grant a petition for relief from failure to file timely claim if it finds, based on facts alleged in the petition, attached declarations and evidence taken at the hearing, both that (a) the claimant's late claim application to the entity (under Gov Code §911.4) was made within a “reasonable time” not exceeding one year after accrual of the cause of action, and (b) failure to present a timely claim in the first instance was due to any of the statutory grounds for which the entity should have granted claimant's late claim application. 

An order granting §946.6 relief completely excuses the plaintiff from filing any claim at all, allowing suit to be filed within 30 days.  (Viles v. State of Calif. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 27; Ard v. County of Contra Costa (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 339, 343.)    

Where such is the ground for relief, excusable neglect is evaluated the same way as on a motion under CCP § 473. Neglect is permissible; inexcusable neglect is not.  (See Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Dist. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 529, 536; Viles v. State (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 29.) Excusable neglect has been defined as neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.  (Barragan v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1384.)   

“To obtain relief under section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1), ‘[t]he mere recital of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is not sufficient to warrant relief. Relief on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is available only on a showing that the claimant's failure to timely present a claim was reasonable when tested by the objective ‘reasonably prudent person’ standard.’ [Citation.]”  (N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 73-74.)   

 

Under the reasonably prudent person standard, “[e]xcusable neglect is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.” (Id. at p. 1296, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 173.) When relief is sought based on mistake, because of the reasonably prudent person standard “it is not every mistake that will excuse a default, the determining factor being the reasonableness of the misconception.” (Shank v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 152, 157, 188 Cal.Rptr. 644, italics added.) 

 

A showing of reasonable diligence is required to establish that the petitioner acted as a reasonably prudent person. When excusable neglect is claimed based on ignorance of a fact or failure to act on it, “[a] person seeking relief must show more than just failure to discover a fact until too late; or a simple failure to act. He [or she] must show by a preponderance of the evidence that in the use of reasonable diligence, he [or she] could not discover the fact or could not act upon it.” (Dept. of Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 173.) Similarly, when mistake is claimed, “[t]he party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he [or she] was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim ....” (Id. at p. 1293, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 173.) Under this standard, “ ‘[f]ailure to discover the alleged basis of the cause of action in time is ... not a compelling showing in the absence of reasonable diligence exercised for the purpose of discovering the facts.’ ” (Harrison v. County of Del Norte (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1, 7, 213 Cal.Rptr. 658.) Further, “the mere ignorance of the time limitation for filing against a public entity is not a sufficient ground for allowing a late claim.” (Ibid.) 

 

(N.G., supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at 74.)   

 

Here, Plaintiff avers she failed to file a timely claim for damages with LACMTA because of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. At the time of the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff informed her counsel that the incident occurred on the “Yellow Line” in the City of Lynwood. However, after Plaintiff’s deposition was taken on February 21, 2023, Plaintiff remembered for the first time that she actually boarded an orange Metro bus Line 60, and not the “Yellow Line” for the City. Thus, on March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application to present a late claim with LACMTA, which was denied on May 4, 2023.  

Gov Code §946.6(c) provides that the late claim application shall not exceed one year after accrual of the cause of action. The accrual of the action is the date of the incident on January 22, 2021, and by the time Plaintiff filed an application with LACMTA, approximately 2 years and two months had already passed. This alone is sufficient to deny the petition. Further, there is no statutory ground for which LACMTA should have granted Plaintiff's late claim application. At the time the City rejected Plaintiff’s timely claim, Plaintiff was on notice that the City had issue with the claim. Regardless of the generalities of the City’s rejection letter, the burden is on Plaintiff to exercise due diligence in determining the proper entity. The mistake here is Plaintiff misremembering the facts of the incident. Plaintiff has failed to show, by preponderance of evidence, that despite the use of reasonable diligence, she could not discover LACMTA or act upon it. As conceded by Plaintiff, she only remembered she had in fact boarded a Metro bus two years after the incident occurred. However, under the statutory provisions, it is now too late to seek relief from an untimely claim.  

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s petition for relief and order permitting to file a late claim with LACMTA is DENIED.   

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the Court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 16th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court