SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff, Sook Baik (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and County of Los Angeles (the “County”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising out of a trip and fall over a sidewalk that occurred on February 4, 2022.  The complaint alleges a single cause of action for dangerous condition of public property pursuant to Government Code § 835.  

The City moves for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff opposes the motion. This matter was previously heard on June 8, 2023. The Court continued the hearing to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to file an absent Request for Judicial Notice of Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages to the City. (Min. Order, June 8, 2023.) On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Request for Judicial Notice of Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages presented to the City.  

At the September 11, 2023 hearing, the Court continued the hearing to November 15, 2023 to allow the City to file a reply, due sixteen days before the hearing. (Min. Order, Sept. 11, 2023.) 

On October 30, 2023, the City filed its reply.  

 

II. Plaintiff’s Objections and Request for Judicial Notice 

Plaintiff’s objections to the Declaration of Carol Attarian are OVERRULED. 

Plaintiff also requests the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages presented to the City of Los Angeles and (2) the USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Card signed by the City Clerk for the City of Los Angeles.  

Government Code § 911.2(a) states, “[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.” 

 

Government Code § 915 provides in pertinent part, 

(a) A claim, any amendment thereto, or an application to the public entity for leave to present a late claim shall be presented to a local public entity by any of the following means: 

(1) Delivering it to the clerk, secretary, or auditor thereof. 

(2) Mailing it to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office. 

(3) If expressly authorized by an ordinance or resolution of the public entity, submitting it electronically to the public entity in the manner specified in the ordinance or resolution. 

… 

(e) A claim, amendment, or application shall be deemed to have been presented in compliance with this section even though it is not delivered or mailed as provided in this section if, within the time prescribed for presentation thereof, any of the following apply: 

(1) It is actually received by the clerk, secretary, auditor, or board of the local public entity. 

 

“The failure to timely present a proper claim … bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity. [Citation.]”  (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374.)  Thus, “[e]ven if the public entity has actual knowledge of facts that might support a claim, the claims statutes still must be satisfied. [Citation.]”  (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990.)  “The filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail.”  (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 767.)   

 

Furthermore, Government Code § 911.4 provides in pertinent part, 

(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. 

 

(b) 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. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application. 

 

“Where there has been an attempt to comply [with the claims statute] but the compliance is defective, the test of substantial compliance controls. Under this test, the court must ask whether sufficient information is disclosed on the face of the filed claim ‘to reasonably enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and settle it without the expense of a lawsuit.’” (Wood v. Riverside Gen. Hosp. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118.)  “City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 456-457 [115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701, 76 A.L.R.3d 1223] notes a twofold test for substantial compliance: ‘to gauge the sufficiency of a particular claim, two tests shall be applied: Is there some compliance with all of the statutory requirements; and, if so, is this compliance sufficient to constitute substantial compliance?’”  (Id.)   

Here, the City contends Plaintiff failed to file a government claim against the City as required by Government Code § 911.2(a). Further, the City contend the time for Plaintiff to apply for leave to file a late claim has expired. The City avers that it met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding proof of Plaintiff’s government claim against the City, which bore no results. Additionally, the City attaches to its motion a government claim for damages, which is a claim for damages against the County.  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the allegations in the Complaint should be deemed as true because the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff had presented a governmental claim to Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice establish Plaintiff presented a timely government claim to the City, and that the City’s motion should be denied because it relies on extrinsic evidence. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Plaintiff’s Claim for Damages to the City.  

The City, in reply, argues that the purported government claim was not filed online and does not have an assigned LA City Government Claim number. The City argues online filing is the “usual way a Government Claim is filed with the City of Los Angeles” and maintains Plaintiff did not submit a government claim at any time. The City provides the declarations attesting that the Office of the City Clerk has no record of receiving any claim on behalf of Plaintiff for the incident date.  

The incident occurred on February 4, 2022. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 915.2, “The claim, amendment, application, or notice shall be deemed to have been presented and received at the time of the deposit.” Notably, the City’s argument that online filing of a government claim is the “usual way” does not invalidate the alternative of mailing the government claim. Further, Gov. Code § 915.2 does not contemplate whether the City actually processed the claim or not. To do so would essentially allow a public entity to circumvent claims against it by merely declaring it could not find the claim in its records, despite proof of deposit. The Court finds that Plaintiff timely presented the Claim Form to the City because Plaintiff mailed the subject Claim Form on June 9, 2022, within six months of the accrual of the action, and in compliance with Gov. Code §§ 915 and 915.2. 

 

Accordingly, the City’s motion is DENIED.