Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP00803, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP00803    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 86

HELMN v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: 22STCP00803

Hearing Date: October 19, 2022

[Tentative]       ORDER DENYING PETITION TO FILE A LATE CLAIM

Petitioner, Lynn J. Helmn, requests the court relieve her of the claims presentation requirement of Government Code^[1] section 945.4. Respondent, State of California, opposes the petition.

The petition to file a late claim is DENIED.

APPLICABLE LAW

Section 911.2, in the Government Tort Claims Act, provides a “claim relating to a cause of action . . . for injury to person . . . shall be presented . . . not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Emphasis added.) The date of accrual for the purpose of presentation of a claim is the date on which the cause of action would have accrued within the meaning of the statute of limitations. (§ 901.)

Section 946.6 is the ultimate judicial backstop of the claim presentation process. If a claimant fails to file a timely claim and if the public entity then denies the claimant’s application for permission to file a late claim, the claimant may file a petition for relief from section 945.4’s requirement of timely claim presentation prior to suit. (See also §§ 946.6, subd. (a), 911.2 and 911.4.)

The petition must be filed within six months after the application to the public entity is denied or deemed to be denied. (§ 946.6, subd. (b).) The petition must show: (1) an application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for the failure to timely present the claim to the public entity within the time limit specified in section 911.2; and (3) the information required by section 910. (§ 946.6, subd. (b).)

The court shall grant relief only if it finds (1) the application to the public entity for leave to file a late claim was made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after accrual of the claim as specified in section 911.4, subd. (b); and (2) one or more of the following is applicable:

1. the failure to timely 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;

2. the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was a minor during all of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim;

3. the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that time; or

4. the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.

    

   (§ 946.6, subd. (c); see also Tammen v. County of San Diego (1967) 66 Cal.2d 468, 474.)

    

   In instances where the petitioner claims the failure to timely present the claim was the product of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, the Court analyzes the petition under the principles applicable to relief from defaults under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Han v. City of Pomona (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 552, 557 [citing Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435].) When considering relief under section 946.6, the Court should resolve any doubts which may exist in favor of the application, preferring an outcome where the action may be heard on its merits. (Viles v. California (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 28-29.)

    

   A petitioner bears the initial burden of demonstrating his or her entitlement to relief. (Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 910-911; Toscano v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 775, 784-785.) A petitioner must prove the basis for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. (Toscano v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at 784-785; Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Dzhibinyan) (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293.) A respondent has no burden to establish prejudice until the petitioner has satisfied the court that his or her failure to file a timely claim was due to mistake, inadvertence surprise or excusable neglect. (Rivera v. City of Carson (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 718, 726.)

    

   Finally, “[r]emedial statutes such as . . . section 946.6 should be liberally construed.” (Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1783.)

    

   ANALYSIS

    

   On August 17, 2020, Petitioner was injured in a motor vehicle collision involving a California Highway Patrol vehicle driven by a California Highway Patrol employee. (Gould Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.)

    

   On August 24, 2020, Respondent, through its Department of General Services, informed Petitioner by letter it learned Petitioner had been involved in an accident involving its employee. (Gould Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Respondent’s letter advised claims against Respondent “ha[ve] a six-month statute of limitations.” (Ibid.) The letter also informed Petitioner she would be required to file “a formal claim with the Government Claims Program” if her claim remained unresolved after six months. (Ibid.)

    

   On September 16, 2020, Petitioner notified Respondent she was represent by a law firm. (Gould Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Petitioner’s law firm advised Respondent to “cease any further contact with” Petitioner. (Ibid.)

    

   On September 29, 2020, Respondent confirmed receipt of Petitioner’s letter of representation and requested an update about Petitioner’s injuries and damages resulting from the incident. (Gould Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. D.) Respondent’s letter again advised of a “six-month statute of limitation” and the need for file a “formal claim” if the claim was not resolved in six months. (Ibid.)

    

   On September 29, 2020, Petitioner notified Respondent by email that Petitioner had not yet received copies of her medical reports and bills but would forward such information upon receipt. (Id., at ¶ 6, Ex. E.)

    

   An attorney with Petitioner’s law firm represents “Petitioner’s Law Firm presented” Respondent with a copy of “Petitioner’s claim on the Government Claim form” on February 1, 2021. (Gould Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. K.) However, Petitioner represents her attorneys mistakenly misspelled her name as “Linda” rather than “Lynn,” as well as included an incorrect claim number on the claim form. (Ibid.)

    

   On June 23, 2021, Petitioner’s law firm sent Respondent by mail, facsimile transmission, and

   e-mail a 128-page letter that contained the contents required of a claim, pursuant to section 910. (Gould Decl., ¶ 13.)

    

   On June 24, 2021, Respondent sent an e-mail to Petitioner’s law firm advising Petitioner that Respondent could not confirm Petitioner had filed a claim with the Government Claims Program. Accordingly, Respondent advised Petitioner it would not be able to process Petitioner’s claim “without confirmation [of] a formal claim.” (Gould Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. L.)

    

   On June 29, 2021, pursuant to section 911.4, Petitioner’s attorney presented Respondent with Petitioner’s claim for damages on the Government Claim form. (Gould Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. O) On the same day, Petitioner also presented Respondent with Petitioner’s application for leave to present a late claim for damages against Respondent pursuant to section 911.4.[2] (Gould Decl., ¶ 18.)

    

   On August 17, 2021, Respondent informed Petitioner the confusion with Petitioner’s claim flowed from the claim form’s error—the wrong first name for Petitioner. (Gould Decl., ¶ 22, Ex. R.)

    

   On December 2, 2021, Respondent denied Petitioner’s June 29, 2021 claim as late under section 911.2. Respondent advised its staff was reviewing Petitioner’s application for leave to present a late claim “to determine if it meets the requirements of the Government Code.” Respondent also reported it would provide notice of its final decision concerning the late claim. (Id., at ¶ 26, Ex. V.)

    

   On February 1, 2022, Respondent advised Petitioner denied her application to file a late claim. (Gould Decl., ¶ 30, Ex. Y.)

    

   This petition ensued.

    

   Petitioner argues the court should grant her leave to file a late claim with Respondent based on mistake, surprise, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect. Respondent argues Petitioner has failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The court agrees.

    

   As a preliminary matter, Petitioner contends her attorneys presented a timely government claim. Petitioner represents on February 1, 2021, she “presented Respondent” with a government claim form through her attorneys. The government claim form, however, mistakenly misspelled Petitioner’s name as “Linda” rather than “Lynn.” (Gould Decl., ¶ 12.)

    

   First, Petitioner’s evidence does not provide percipient witness testimony her claim was “presented” to Respondent on February 1, 2021. Rather, Petitioner—without any specifics as to who submitted the claim and how it was submitted—states in vague language her attorneys “presented” the claim to Respondent. (Gould Decl., ¶ 12.) Petitioner’s attorneys are unable to provide any direct evidence to corroborate the presentation of the claim to Respondent.[3] Petitioner’s attorneys explained the firm’s “assistant deposited the mailings directly at the local post office.” (Wolf Decl., ¶ 6.) Petitioner has not submitted any declaration into evidence from the firm’s assistant concerning the mailing.

    

   Respondent provides evidence it never received a claim form from Petitioner dated February 1, 2021. (Rivera Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.) Respondent’s evidence acknowledges receiving a claim for “Linda” Helmn on June 29, 2021. Respondent’s evidence shows it did not receive any other claim for Petitioner prior to June 29, 2021. (Rivera Decl., ¶¶ 4-9; see also Wolf Decl., ¶¶ 2-7.)

    

   In contrast to Petitioner’s evidence, Respondent’s evidence is detailed and persuasive. Respondent provides evidence of a thorough search by Respondent’s custodian of records for Petitioner’s purportedly timely claim. Respondent’s evidence Petitioner did not submit a claim is somewhat consistent with a lack of communications between Petitioner’s attorneys and Respondent from January 29 to June 23, 2021 despite their history of active communication. (Sims Decl., ¶¶ 12-14.)

    

   Further, the June 29, 2021 claim form provides a late-claim explanation. The claim form states, “Ms. Helmn was severely injured after the collision in an unrelated matter, and due to COVID-19 she has been trying to avoid any more stress on her immune system.” (Rivera Decl., ¶ 5.) The explanation does not mention any earlier filed claim. (Ibid.)

    

   Based on the evidence, while the claim form may have been prepared and signed by Petitioner’s attorneys, the court finds Petitioner did not submit a timely claim to Respondent on or around February 1, 2021.[4] Petitioner has not presented any percipient evidence (or explanation for a lack of evidence) her attorneys mailed the claim form to Respondent. Respondent’s evidence—it never received the February 1, 2021 claim form—is more persuasive on the issue.[5]

    

   Having focused solely on the premise Petitioner filed a timely claim form on February 1, 2021, Petitioner provides no explanation for filing her claim late. That is, Petitioner has not demonstrated mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect resulting in her having filed a late claim. Petitioner provides no evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect—with the exception of some misspellings and error within the claim itself which does not explain the late claim.[6]

    

   "The 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' standar [Citation] (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (Dzhibinyan), supra, 82 Cal. App. 4th at 1293.)

    

   Excusable neglect is defined as “neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.” (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435.) 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.” (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (Dzhibinyan), supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at 1296.)

    

   “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.’ ” (N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 74.)

   Petitioner provides no evidence explaining her inability to make a timely claim or the reasons why she failed to make the timely claim warrants relief. Petitioner has failed to meet her burden on this petition.[7]

    

   Petitioner appears to pivot in reply and contends she made her late claim application within a reasonable period of time after the accrual of her cause of cation. The court agrees Petitioner’s late claim application fits within the strict time limits of section 646.6, subdivision (c). Nonetheless, section 946.6, subdivision (c) requires Petitioner to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect for the failure to make a timely claim. Petitioner has not done that here.

    

   CONCLUSION

    

   Based on the foregoing, the petition is denied. 

    

   IT IS SO ORDERED.

    

   October 19, 2022                                                                  ________________________________

                                                                                                                      Hon. Mitchell Beckloff

                                                                                                                      Judge of the Superior Court