Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV02020, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV02020, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV02020 Hearing Date: April 14, 2025 Dept: G

Petitioner Nicole Mondragon’s Petition for Order Permitting Late Claim Against a Governmental Entity

Respondent: Respondent County of Los Angeles

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Nicole Mondragon’s Petition for Order Permitting Late Claim Against a Governmental Entity is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. On May 20, 2023, petitioner Nicole Mondragon (Petitioner) fell down the stairs leading from the Longboard Bar at the Fairplex fairgrounds during Los Angeles County Fair. After the incident, Petitioner filed a claim with Fairplex and the Los Angeles County Fair Association.

On April 3, 2024, Petitioner presented an application for permission to present a late claim to the County of Los Angeles (Respondent). On April 24, 2024, Respondent denied Petitioner’s application.

On September 16, 2024, Petitioner filed the initial petition. On March 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a supplemental petition. A hearing on the petition is set for April 14, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner Nicole Mondragon petitions for relief from government claims statutes in connection with Respondent, a potential defendant. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Petitioner’s petition without prejudice.

Legal Standard

Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (a) provides that “[i]f 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 [requiring a claim to be presented to a public entity before an action may be brought against the public entity].”

Petitioners must file the petition within six months after the application to the board is denied. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).) The court shall grant the petition if the court finds: (1) that the petitioner made the application to the board within a reasonable time not to exceed one year under Section 911.4, subdivision (b); (2) the application was denied or deemed denied; and (3) that one or more of the enumerated reasons apply. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c).) One of the enumerated reasons is “[t]he 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 relief is granted. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).)

Discussion

In this case, Petitioner alleges to have fallen down a set of stairs at the Fairplex fairgrounds on May 20, 2023. (Supp. Petition, p. 3:4-6.) Under Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (a), a claim for injury must be made within six (6) months of the date of injury. Here, however, Petitioner failed to bring a claim to Respondent within this time period. Instead, Petitioner brought a claim to Fairplex and Lose Angeles County Fair Association on an unknown date and received a denial letter dated July 25, 2023. (Harding Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) Petitioner asserts that she later brought a claim to Respondent on April 3, 2024. Petitioner attaches, however, an unsigned, unstamped claim for damages dated April 2, 2024. (Petition, p. 3:24-25; Harding Decl., Exh. 3.) It is unclear to the court whether Petitioner submitted this claim.

Nevertheless, on April 3, 2024, Petitioner applied directly to Respondents for permission to file a late claim. (Harding Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 4.) Petitioner submitted the application within a year of the accrual of Petitioner’s cause of action, the incident of which occurred on May 20, 2023. Therefore, the court finds that Petitioner’s timely presented the application. On April 24, 2024, Respondent rejected the application. (Harding Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 5.) Therefore, the court looks next to see if an enumerated reason for relief is also present.

Petitioner argues Petitioner is entitled to relief on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect pursuant to Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1). (Harding Decl., ¶ 4.) “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.” (N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 73-74, quoting Dept. of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000), 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293 (Dept. of Water & Power).) “A person seeking relief must show more than just failure to discover a fact until too late; or a simple failure to act,” instead showing “by a preponderance of the evidence that in the use of reasonable diligence, he could not discover the fact or could not act upon it.” (Dept. of Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296.) Because Government Code section 946.6 “is a remedial statute intended ‘to provide relief from technical rules that otherwise provide a trap for the unwary claimant,’” courts construe it “in favor of relief whenever possible” in line with the judicial policy of favoring trials on the merits. (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 275-276, quoting Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435.)

However, “[w]here the lateness of the claim is attributable to the failure of the claimant or his counsel to conduct a reasonably prudent investigation of the circumstances of the accident, relief from the claims filing statute is not available.” (Dept. of Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296.) “[T]he preference for a trial on the merits does not warrant relief if based on a perfunctory recital of diligence in support of excusable neglect.” (DeVore v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 454, 459.)

Similarly, “[t]he general policy favoring trial on the merits cannot be applied indiscriminately so as to render ineffective the statutory time limits.” (Dept. of Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293.) Instead, “a petitioner must show more than his or her failure to discover a fact until too late; the petitioner must establish that in the use of reasonable diligence he or she failed to discover it.” (Munoz v. State (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1784 (Munoz).) And “[w]hen there is a readily available source of information from which the potential liability of a government entity may be discovered, a failure to use that source is deemed inexcusable.” (Dep’t of Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294.)

Petitioner asserts Petitioner is entitled to relief due to a mistake inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect because Petitioner is a layperson and ignorant of the claim requirements and the statute of limitations. (Supp. Petition, pp. 3:19-23, 6:2-14.) As discussed in Dept. of Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293, Petitioner must assert more than a failure to discover the statute of limitations for governmental claims or that Respondent is the proper party. Petitioner must show “by a preponderance of the evidence that in the use of reasonable diligence, [s]he could not discover the fact or could not act upon it.” (Id. at p. 1296.)

Here, the court finds Petitioner failed to exercise reasonable diligence in investigating her claim. Petitioner filed a claim with Fairplex and the Los Angeles County Fair Association, but did not diligently investigate her claim for several months after receiving the July 25, 2023 denial. Petitioner retained counsel on March 28, 2024, ten (10) months after her injury and eight (8) months after receipt of the denial of her claim. (Harding Decl., ¶ 5.) In between filing the initial claim and retaining counsel, Petitioner did not investigate her claim.

For these reasons, the court finds that Petitioner did not exercise reasonable diligence in investigating her claim and is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s petition is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner Nicole Mondragon’s petition is DENIED.