Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01230, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV01230 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: November 12, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01230
CASE NAME: Cayden Byrd, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Nicole Jackson v. Centinela Hospital Medical Center, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Cayden Byrd, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Nicole Jackson
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, County of Los Angeles
TRIAL DATE: May 12, 2025
MOTION: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and file Late Government Claim.
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff, Cayden Byrd, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Centinela Hospital Medical Center, Stanton P. Jasicki, D.O., Steven L. Scott, P.A., LaLa Park, M.D., and DOES 1 through 100. The complaint alleges one cause of action for Medical Malpractice/Negligence.
Now, Plaintiff moves on a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
B. Procedural
On September 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. On October 2, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief. On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
“Except as provided in Section 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) or Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) “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 (commending with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. . . . (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (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.” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) “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 delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application.” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).)
“The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.” (Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (a).) “The board shall grant the application where one or more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and the public entity was not prejudiced in its defense of the claim by the failure to present the claim within the time specified in Section 911.2. [¶] (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 such disability failed to present a claim during such time. [¶] (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.” (Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)
“If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (a).) “The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).) “This petition shall show each of the following: (1) The application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. (3) The information required by Section 910.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)
“The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.5 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to 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.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).) “The court shall make an independent determination upon the petition. The determination shall be made upon the basis of the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (e).) “If the court makes an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.5, suit on the cause of action to which the claim relates shall be filed with the court within 30 days thereafter.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (f).)
B. Discussion
Plaintiff seeks leave to file his FAC and file a late-claim pursuant to Government Code section 946.6 on the grounds that he states his cause of action for medical negligence against the County of Los Angeles did not accrue until Plaintiff discovered, or had reason to discovery, the factual bases for a cause of action against it which occurred in or around the Spring of 2024. Plaintiff, a minor, filed a claim with the County of Los Angeles which was also filed in the alternative as a “late” claim. The application was denied by the third-party administrator for the County of Los Angeles (Sedgwick) and Plaintiff was directed to file the instant motion for relief.
The County of Los Angeles argues that this court should deny the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has not established proper service under the requirements of Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (d). For example, County states neither the notice of hearing nor the petition illustrate that either document has been served on the clerk, secretary, or Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles. Second, County of Los Angeles also argues this court should deny the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has the burden of establishing entitlement to late-claim relief by preponderance of the evidence, and that the inadmissible hearsay statements and improper legal conclusions set forth in the Declaration of Eduardo J. Ascencio in support of Plaintiff’s Motion must be disregarded. Similarly, County argues that Declaration of Nicole Jackson also fails to stand as supporting evidence. Instead, County states Plaintiff’s mother, Nicole Jackson should have suspected her son’s injures were caused by “someone doing something wrong” in January 2022. The court disagrees.
The declarations submitted on behalf of Plaintiff provide more than mere conclusions that Nicole Jackson did not know of any wrongdoing on behalf of County prior to Spring of 2024 as no expert was directed to examine the conduct of County’s physicians earlier than this time. Certainly, at the pleading stage, this is enough. Whether Plaintiff can prove the claims alleged in the proposed FAC is a question for a later motion or trial. However, the court finds good cause to GRANT this motion.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.