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

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

Petitioner, Jose Estrada, requests the court relieve him of the claim presentation requirement of Government Code[1] section 945.4. Petitioner also suggests he timely submitted his government claim to Respondent, the City of Baldwin Park. (Pet., ¶ 2.)

Respondent opposes the petition. Petitioner filed a reply. (The reply is timely based on the notice provided to him by Respondent of the hearing.)

The court finds Petitioner timely presented his claim to Respondent. The court therefore need not address Petitioner’s request he be relieved of the claims presentation requirement.

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 provides evidence he timely presented his claim to the City by depositing it in the mail on January 5, 2022. (Estrada Reply Decl., ¶ 2.) Petitioner also provides evidence the City received the claim after Petitioner mailed it. (Estrada Reply Decl., ¶ 8.) The City stamped the claim form on June 5, 2022. (Pet., Ex. 3.) As noted by Petitioner, the City “had in its possession the Claim [he] mailed on January 5, 2022 . . .” on June 5, 2022. (Estrada Reply Decl., ¶ 8.)

As Petitioner did not submit his application to file a late claim with the City, until July 1, 2022, there is no explanation for how the City had a claim form from Petitioner (dated January 5, 2021) that it stamped received on June 5, 2022. (Estrada Reply Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4, 8; Pet. Ex. 3.)

The evidence supports a finding Petitioner submitted his claim form to the City on January 5, 2022. Petitioner submitted the claim within six months of his injuries. Petitioner timely submitted his claim to the City. (Gov. Code, § 915.2, subd. (a). [“The claim, amendment, application, or notice shall be deemed to have been presented and received at the time of deposit.”]) While the evidence about Petitioner’s mailing process is unclear, the evidence supports a finding the City had the claim form in its possession after Petitioner mailed the form.[3]

In this proceeding, there is authority permitting the court to consider the timeliness of Petitioner’s claim. The court acknowledges the Courts of Appeal are split on the issue. The appellate courts have differing views of whether a petitioner under section 946.6 may alternatively request a determination he or she presented a timely claim or must wait until the action where her or she may allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement. (Compare, e.g., Ngo v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 951-952 [Ngo] [must be raised in a complaint alleging compliance] and Rason v. Santa Barbara City Housing Authority (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 817, 827-828 [same] with Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 711 [Santee] [may be addressed in a claim-relief proceeding] and Reyes v. County of Los Angeles (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 584, 593-594.)

Most recently, in Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare District (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 391 [Simms], the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District noted a preference for resolving the timeliness issue on a petition under section 946.6.

“Of course, this is not to say that the question of timely filing must be determined in a claim-relief proceeding or that the court in all cases may make factual determinations regarding compliance with the claim presentation requirements. We can envision certain cases, such as where the date of the accrual of the cause of action is disputed . . . .” (Santee, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at 711.)

To resolve the timeliness issue here, the court need only address one issue—did Petitioner mail his claim, as he attests, on January 5, 2022? That the City was in possession of his claim on June 5, 2022, prior to any further written communication from Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s testimony he properly mailed the claim form to the City on January 5, 2022.

Based on the foregoing, the petition is granted to the extent Petitioner has requested the court find his claim timely presented to the City.

[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] The petition is unverified. Therefore, the court cannot rely on the facts alleged within it. The court notes, however, the petition alleges Petitioner telephoned the clerk’s office with the City on May 27, 2022 “and was told that City Clerk’s office was closed and someone would contact Petitioner.” (Pet., ¶ 5.) Petitioner further alleges, “On June 6, 2020, Lourdes Morales, from the City Clerk’s office contacted petitioner and on behalf of the City denied being in receipt of any Claim by Petitioner.” (Pet., ¶ 6.) There is competent evidence the City stamped Petitioner’s original January 5, 2022 claim “Received” on June 5, 2022.