Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP02467, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP02467 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 86
SMITH v. COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES
Case
Number: 22STCP02467
Hearing
Date: March 22, 2023
[Tentative] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM
CLAIM FILING
Petitioner,
Karen Smith, requests the court relieve her of the claim presentation requirement
of Government Code[1]
section 945.4. Respondent, the County of Los Angeles, has not appeared.
The court requests Petitioner explain
how service on Lillian Harwell of the notice of hearing is appropriate. It is
unclear how the court can determine Ms. Harwell is representing the County in
this matter.
The
petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement is DENIED.
APPLICABLE
LAW
Government Code 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:
(a)
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;
(b)
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;
(c)
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
(d)
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 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, 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
Petitioner
argues the court should relieve her of the claim presentation requirement based
on mistake, surprise, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect.
As
noted, pursuant to section 911.2, 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.)
As
alleged in her unverified petition, on August 24, 2021, Petitioner sustained
an injury after she tripped and fell in the parking lot of the George Lance
Park, located at or about 5520 West Avenue L-8, in the City of Lancaster.
Petitioner
concedes she failed to submit a claim with the County within six months of her
injury. Instead, Petitioner filed an application to allow her to file a late
claim on or around May 20, 2022, almost nine months after her injury. (Fiore
Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. A)
On
June 6, 2022, the County denied her application. (Fiore Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.) The
County’s claims administrator advised the application “has been deemed denied
by operation of law pursuant to Section 911.6 of the California Government
Code.” (Fiore Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.)
Petitioner
now seeks relief from the claim presentation requirement based upon mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Subdivision (a) of section 946.6 requires
a petitioner to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect for the failure to make a timely claim. To show mistake, inadvertence,
surprise or excusable neglect, a petitioner must provide evidence. Petitioner’s
brief declaration submitted to the County with her application to file a late
claim is devoid of any facts related to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
neglect.
"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' standard." (Department of Water
& Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 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.” (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.)
In
her application to file a late claim with the County, Petitioner reports her
attorney’s office “mis-calendared the statute of limitations as one that was
actually 2 years, not the 6 months that is the actual statute when you are
dealing with a government entity like the County of Los Angeles.” (Fiore Decl.,
Ex. A.) She explains her attorney “mistakenly identified” the park as private
property. Petitioner provides no real detail to support her claims. She also
does not provide any foundation for the statements. The court has no facts from
which it could judge whether the alleged error was one a reasonably prudent person
might make—the court cannot judge whether the alleged misconception was reasonable.
Petitioner
also submits a letter from her counsel from November 2021 addressed to
“Georgelane Park” on West Avenue L8 in the City of Quartz Hill. The letter
indicates Petitioner is represented by her counsel, the date of Petitioner’s
injury and a request for information regarding insurance coverage. (Fiore
Decl., Ex. A.)
Other
than the letter itself, there is no evidence about it or context for it.
Nothing in the letter suggests whether and to what extent, if at all,
Petitioner acted diligently in pursuing her claim or the identity of the
property owner. There is no explanation for the delay of any action by
Petitioner from November 11, 2021 to February 2022, the deadline for Petitioner
to file her claim with the County.
Based
on the lack of any credible evidence addressing Petitioner’s claim of mistake,
inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, the court has no grounds for
granting Petitioner relief.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
March
22, 2023 ________________________________
Hon. Mitchell
Beckloff
Judge of the Superior
Court