Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case 22STCP03313 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP03313, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner, Jose Estrada, requests the court relieve him of the claim presentation requirement of Government Code[1] section 945.4.

Respondent, the City of Baldwin Park, opposes the petition. Petitioner did not file a reply.

The petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement is DENIED. The court makes no finding whether Petitioner timely presented his claim to the City. (See Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 171, 175.)

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 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, 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.)

Petitioner argues the court should relieve him of the claim presentation requirement because he timely filed his claim. Alternatively, Petitioner argues he is entitled to relief based upon mistake, surprise, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect.

The City argues the petition should be denied. The City labels the petition “procedurally improper because it fails to identify a hearing date, time, or place and fails to include the proposed amended complaint.”[2] (Opposition 1:26-28.) The City further alleges Petitioner failed to comply with section 911.2 because he did not submit his claim to the City within six months of the accrual of his cause of action. (Opposition 2:1-3.) Finally, the City argues Petitioner “fails to show that [his] failure to present a timely claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . .” (Opposition 2:6-8.)

As noted, pursuant to Government Code 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.)

Petitioner alleges in his unverified petition that he sustained injuries on November 24, 2021 while riding his motorcycle. Petitioner contends his injury is based on a dangerous condition located at 5195 Rivergrade Road in the City.

Petitioner alleges he timely presented his claim to the City by depositing it in the mail on January 5, 2022. (Pet., ¶ 2.) Petitioner’s allegation is unsupported by any evidence—his petition is unverified and he has not submitted a declaration to support his petition. As argued by the City, Petitioner “provides no declaration or admissible evidence to indicate” he filed a timely claim with the City.[3] (Opposition 3:28 [emphasis added].)

Based on Petitioner’s failure to provide admissible evidence to demonstrate he timely filed his claim with the City, the court cannot make such a finding.

Petitioner’s alternative argument for relief based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect fails for the same reason—Petitioner has submitted no admissible evidence.

Petitioner claims he trusted the City to “act in good faith and Petitioner would NOT need to mail the claim via certified mail service.” (Pet., ¶ 4.) While it is not entirely clear what Petitioner contends is the mistake, surprise or inadvertence, the court treats Petitioner’s claim as based on mistake—Petitioner “mistakenly” trusted the City. (Pet., ¶ 4.)

Relief under Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (c) requires the claimant demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence relief is warranted. (Munoz v. State of California, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1777.)

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at 175 is instructive. Here, as in Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, Petitioner’s petition—unverified and without any supporting affidavits or declarations—failed to present any evidence, much less evidence preponderating in his favor. (Id. at 174-175.) “As stated in Ebersol v. Cowan [supra, 35 Cal.3d at 436-437], it is proper to deny relief under section 946.6 where there is ‘simply no competent evidence before the trial court upon which it could exercise its discretion.’ “ (Id. at 176.) Petitioner has not met his burden to prove the elements of section 946.6 relief by mere allegations in an unverified petition.

The Court in Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles also declined to find that the petitioner’s claim was timely filed on the same grounds—lack of evidence.[4] (Id. at 176.)

Even if the court considered Petitioner’s argument as evidence, the court notes "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.)

“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 [emphasis in original].)

In the absence of any evidence supporting his grounds for mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect—the court cannot grant relief.

[1] All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise noted.

[2] The City appears to have referenced a proposed amended complaint in error.

[3] Petitioner has attached declarations to the exhibits attached to his petition. Petitioner has not, however, submitted the declarations directly to the court for the purposes of this proceeding. The declarations appear to have been presented to the City in his effort to obtain permission from the City to file a late claim. (See North Beverly Park Homeowners Assn. v. Bisno (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 762, 778. [“There is a hearsay exception for the use of declarations in motion practice, but that exception applies to declarations filed in support of motions in the present action, not those filed in other actions.”])

[4] Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles explained the timeliness of a claim is not within the purview of the superior court in considering a petition for a late claim. (Ibid.) To be clear, the court has not decided herein whether Petitioner timely filed his claim.