Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV15983, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV15983 Hearing Date: September 15, 2023 Dept: 31
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to file a late claim is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction to grant
relief.
Legal
Standard
Under the
Government Claims Act, a plaintiff bringing suit for monetary damages against a
public entity or employees thereof must first present a claim to the public
entity (“government claim”) which must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the
public entity. (Government Code §§
945.4, 950.2, 950.6(a).) To be timely, a
government claim for damages must be presented to the public entity within six
months of the date the cause of action accrued.
(§ 911.2.)
If a plaintiff
fails to file a government claim within the six-month period, he or she may
apply to the public entity for permission to file a late claim. (§ 911.4.)
Such an application must be presented within a reasonable time, and not
later than one year after the cause of action’s accrual. (§ 911.4(b).)
If the public
entity denies the application for permission to file a late claim, the
plaintiff may file a civil petition for relief from section 945.4’s requirement
of timely claim presentation prior to suit.
(§ 946.6.) The petition must be
filed within six months after the application to the public entity is denied or
deemed to be denied. (§ 946.6(b).) The petition must show: (1) that an
application was made to the public entity under section 911.4 and was denied or
deemed denied; (2) the reason for 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(b).)
The court shall
grant relief only if it finds that (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(b), (2) the application
was denied or deemed denied by the public agency pursuant to section
911.6, and (3) 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(c).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves
for an order for relief for failing to timely present a claim to the City,
arguing that the failure to file a timely claim was due to excusable neglect.
She argues her excusable neglect was caused by her lack of legal and procedural
knowledge.
Plaintiff alleges that she posted a poem to her private
Facebook page, and the next morning, on December 14, 2021, police officers came
to her house for a welfare check. (SAC.) They then took her to get evaluated.
Plaintiff seeks to sue the LAPD and Officer Morales “for wrongful detainment,
invasion of privacy, anxiety, traumatize, discrimination, challenging one’s
integrity, harassment, and coercing and questioning of minor under the age of
18 without parental presentation, violation of the 1st and 4th
Amendment of the U.S. constitution.” (Id.)
On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff
presented a claim to the City. On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s claim was
denied because it was not presented within six months after the event or
occurrence as required by sections 911.4 and 911.2 of the Government Code.
(Administrative Claim Denial Letter.) The denial letter dated November 18, 2022
stated that “Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the
City of Los Angeles for Leave to Present a Late Claim.”
Plaintiff
filed an application to present a late claim on February 16, 2023.
(Myers-Predium Decl. (4/21/23).) On March 15, 2023, the application for leave
to present a late claim was denied. The March 15, 2023 denial letter stated “the claim is being returned because it was
not presented within one year of the accrual of the cause of action 12/14/2021.” (Id.)
The Court
cannot grant the requested relief. Government Code section 946.6 only allows
the Court to grant relief when the application to the public entity to file a
late claim was made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after
the accrual of the cause of action. (§ 946.6, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s cause
of action accrued on December 14, 2021. (Norgart v.
Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397 (stating a cause of action accrues
when the wrongful act is done or the wrongful result occurs).) However,
as evidenced from Plaintiff’s exhibits, Plaintiff filed an application to file
a late claim on February 16, 2023. (Myers-Predium Decl. (4/21/23).) The claim
was denied because it was filed after a year the cause of action accrued. (Id.)
As
Plaintiff did not submit the application to the public entity until more than
one year after her cause of action accrued, the Court is without jurisdiction
to grant relief under section 946.6. (Greyhound
Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 488 (“When
the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year
after accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to
grant relief under section 946.6.”).)
Moreover,
again, Plaintiff has not provided evidence that notice of this petition was
mailed to the Los Angeles City Clerk’s Office. “A copy of the petition and a
written notice of the time and place of hearing shall be served before the
hearing as prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil
Procedure on (1) the clerk or secretary or board of the local public entity, if
the respondent is a local public entity[.]” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 946.6 subd.
(d).)
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late claim is DENIED for lack
of jurisdiction to grant relief.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.