Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP04028, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP04028 Hearing Date: June 28, 2024 Dept: 82
Raymond T. Grimes Case
No. 23STCP04028
v. Date:
June 28, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Wael Noor El-Nachef, et al. Department: 82
Judge:
Stephen I. Goorvitch
[Tentative] Order
Denying Petition for Relief from Late Claim
NOTICE: The court will be unexpectedly dark on Friday,
June 28, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Therefore,
this matter will be called at 1:30 p.m. instead of 9:30 a.m. The court provides notice that if Petitioner
does not appear at the hearing, he shall waive the right to be heard, and the
court shall adopt this tentative order as the final order in this case.
Petitioner Raymond T. Grimes (“Petitioner”) seeks leave to file a late tort claim against governmental
entity pursuant to Government Code § 946.6 and Code of Civil Procedure
section 946.6. Petitioner underwent a “flex
sigmoidoscopy” procedure on May 13, 2022.
Petitioner mistakenly filed an administrative complaint and grievance
with the Martin Luther King Jr. Outpatient Center (“MLK”) on May 25, 2022. Petitioner also mistakenly submitted a claim
to LA Care on October 19, 2022. Finally,
on April 4, 2023, Petitioner learned from a reference clerk at the law library that
he should have presented the claim to the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors (the “Board”).
Petitioner
submitted a claim to the Board on April 10, 2023. Government Code section 911.2(a) states that
“a claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to
personal property . . . shall be presented . . . not later than six months
after the accrual of the cause of action.”
If written notice of the board’s action or inaction (which amounts to a
rejection) on the claim is tendered pursuant to section 913, the claimant has
six months from the time the written notice is personally delivered or
deposited in the mail to file suit against the public entity. (Gov. Code § 945.6(a)(1).) This six-month period expired on November 13,
2022. Therefore, the Board denied
Petitioner’s claim as untimely on May 12, 2023.
Three
days later, on May 15, 2023, Petitioner applied to the Board for leave to file
a late claim. If a claimant fails to
make a claim within six months, the claimant may make a written application to
the board of the public entity for permission to present a late claim within a
reasonable time but not to exceed one year from the accrual of the cause of
action. (Gov. Code § 911.4(a)-(b).) This one-year period expired on May 13,
2022. Therefore, the Board denied the
application as untimely. This petition
follows.
As an
initial matter, there is no basis to grant this petition because the application
for late claim was filed two days after the deadline had passed. Nor does Petitioner establish good cause for
failing to present the claim within six months of the accrual of the cause of
action, as required by Government Code section 946.6(b). Petitioner provides no evidence or
explanation why he could not have discovered the proper recipient for his claim
(the Board) before the six-month period expired. In other words, Petitioner does not satisfy
his burden of establishing that his mistake was “reasonable” and his neglect
was “excusable.”
Although the statutes
refer, as a requirement for relief, to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect,” only “neglect” is qualified by the adjective “excusable.” However, it is uniformly held that for relief
on any or all of the stated grounds it must be shown that one’s misconception
was reasonable, or that it might have been the conduct of a reasonably prudent
person under similar circumstances.
(Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Dist. (1978) 84
Cal.App.3d 529, 539 fn.1, quoting Shaddox v. Melcher (1969) 270
Cal.App.2d 598, 601).
Petitioner argues that
Defendants are estopped from relying on the statute of limitations to bar his
claim.
Generally speaking, four
elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel:
(1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend
that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting
the estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the other party
must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the
conduct to his injury.
(Canfield v. Prod (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 722, 730-731.) Petitioner cites no evidence showing that
Respondent made any affirmative acts or engaged in any effort to deceive
Petitioner concerning the proper recipient for his claim.
Petitioner also
argues that there should be equitable tolling.
As Respondent points out, the doctrine of equitable tolling cannot be invoked
to toll the six-month deadline for filing a government claim. (Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48
Cal.App.5th 1104, 1121.) This is because
the six-month period of section 911.2 is not a statute of limitations to which
tolling rules might apply. (Ibid.)
“As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable
tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff
occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public
interest or policy expressed by the Government Claims Act limitations statute.”
(Id. at 1122.) Application of tolling to the claims presentation
deadline would undercut the public policies and purposes that require that
deadline be strictly applied. (Ibid.) Thus, equitable tolling does not
apply to the government claim requirement.
The court has
considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and finds none to be
persuasive.
Based upon the foregoing, the
court orders as follows:
1. Petitioner’s petition for relief from the claims requirement
is denied.
2. The court’s clerk shall provide notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 28, 2024 ___________________________
Stephen
I. Goorvitch
Superior
Court Judge