Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP04048, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04048    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 82

Davien Long, et al. v. County of Los Angeles

Case No. 23STCP04048

Petition for Order Permitting Late Claim

BACKGROUND

            Petitioners Davien Long and Kamryn Long (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed this petition for an order permitting them to file a late claim against Respondents County of Los Angeles and the individual defendants, who were acting in their official capacity (collectively, “Respondents”).  Petitioners allege as follows:

            Davien Long was driving on or about June 23, 2022, when he was pulled over by Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies.  One of the deputies, Deputy Blake Runge, “reached into the car through the window, opened the door, grabbed Mr. Long’s left arm and twisted it.”  Both deputies then dragged him out of the car and put him on the ground.  Kamryn Long, who was present, attempted to ascertain why her husband had been stopped.  In response, the deputies grabbed her arm and shoved her to the side, and the deputies threatened to call Child Protective Services.  Davien Long was taken to the hospital for treatment and then to jail, and his car was impounded.  Eventually, on March 13, 2023, Davien Long’s criminal case was dismissed.

            Now, Petitioners seek an order authorizing them to file a late claim against a governmental entity and individuals acting in their official capacity, per Government Code section 946.6.  Respondents oppose the petition.  The court denies the petition with respect to claims for malicious prosecution and wrongful use of legal process because those claims were timely filed.  The court denies the petition with respect to the remaining claims because Petitioners do not demonstrate that they failed to file a timely claim due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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 a claimant fails to make a claim within six months pursuant to Government Code section 911.2, 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).)  If, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 911.6, the board denies the application to present a late claim, the claimant may petition the court for relief from the requirements of Government Code section 945.4.  (Gov. Code § 946.6(a).)

Government Code section 946.6(b) requires that the petition to the court must show each of the following: (1) that the late claim application made to the board was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to present the claim within six months of the accrual of the cause of action; and (3) the contents of the claim as required by Government Code section 910.  The petition must be filed within six months after the application to present a late claim to the board was denied or deemed to be denied.  (Ibid.) 

The petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the late-claim application was made within a reasonable time and that one of the statutory requirements under Government Code section 946.6(c) was met.  (Drummond v. County of Fresno (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1410.)  Under section 946.4(e), the trial court must make its determination upon the petition, “relying upon any affidavits in support of, or in opposition to, the petition and any additional evidence received at hearing on the petition.”  (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 431.) 

“Section 946.6 is a remedial statue intended to provide relief from technical rules which otherwise provide a trap for the unwary claimant.”  (Id. at 435.)  “[D]oubts will be resolved in favor of the party attempting to get to trial to the end that wherever possible, cases may be heard on their merits.”  (Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Dist. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 529, 537.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            The underlying incident occurred on or about June 23, 2022, and the criminal case against Petitioner Davien Long was dismissed on March 13, 2023.  Petitioners seek to assert the following causes of action: (1) Excessive force, (2) Unlawful detention and arrest, (3) Violation of the Fourth Amendment, (4) Illegal search and seizure, (5) Illegal detention, (6) Violation of California’s Constitutional right to privacy, (7) Battery, (8) Assault, (9) Violation of the Bane Act, (10) Violation of the Ralph Act, (11) Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, (12) Negligence, (13) Intentional infliction of emotional distress, (14) Negligent infliction of emotional distress, (15) False arrest, (16) False imprisonment, (17) Malicious prosecution, (18) Wrongful use of legal process, and (19) Judicial deception.  Petitioners filed a late claim application on June 12, 2023, which was within one year of the incident.  The County denied the application, giving rise to this petition. 

            A.        Claims for Malicious Prosecution and Wrongful Use of Legal Process

            Petitioner Davien Long’s claims for malicious prosecution and wrongful use of legal process were not untimely.  The criminal case against Davien Long was dismissed on March 13, 2023.  Claims for malicious prosecution accrue “at the time of successful termination of the prior proceeding.”  (Bob Barker Enterprises, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 678, 683.)  Respondents do not address this issue in the opposition.  The petition is denied with respect to these claims because they were timely.

            B.        Petitioners’ Remaining Claims

            Pursuant to Government Code section 946.6(c)(1), the court may grant relief from section 945.4 if “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.” 

The showing required of a petitioner seeking relief because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect is the same as required by CCP section 473(b).  (Viles v. State (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 29.) “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).

“The party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim.”  (Department of Water & Power v. Sup.Ct. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293.)  “[N]eglect is not excusable where a party does not take any action within six months after the accrual of a cause of action; at the very least, the party must attempt to engage the services of an attorney to investigate the facts to identify potential defendants in any cause of action arising out of a damaging incident.”  (DeVore v. Dept. of California Highway Patrol (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 454, 460-461; accord Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 436 [“the claimant must at a minimum make a diligent effort to obtain legal counsel”].) 

In this case, Petitioners’ counsel admits that his clients did not seek legal advice until after the dismissal of the criminal case against Davien Long on March 13, 2023, well after the six-month limitations period had expired.  (Carter Decl. ¶ 11.)  Petitioners have not filed declarations and have not given any explanation for failing to engage legal counsel to investigate their legal claims against the County within six months of the June 23, 2022, incident.  In the petition, however, Petitioners represent that they did not present their claims sooner because “they mistakenly believed they could not file on any of the claims until the dismissal of the criminal proceeding.”  Putting aside that there are no declarations on this issue, mistakes of law generally do not constitute mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  To determine whether a person is entitled to relief for a mistake of law, the controlling factor is the reasonableness of the misconception of the law under the circumstances of the particular case.” (Harrison v. County of Del Norte (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.)  “As a general rule, a statute of limitations accrues when the act occurs which gives rise to the claim . . . that is, when ‘the plaintiff sustains actual and appreciable harm.’  Any ‘manifest and palpable’ injury will commence the statutory period.”  (Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Committee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1195-96.)  In this case, Petitioners allegedly suffered injuries for nearly all of their causes of action (e.g., excessive force, assault, battery, violations of their civil rights, etc.) at the time of the incident. 

In their reply brief, Petitioners argue that they are not claiming ignorance of the law but instead focus on the “complexity” of suing a public entity over a related set of actions.  This argument is not persuasive.  Petitioners admit that they did not seek counsel within the six-month limitations period.  Nor do Petitioners articulate any reasonable diligence in investigating and pursuing their claims before the limitations period expired.  Therefore, Petitioners have not demonstrated that they made a reasonable mistake of law. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         The court denies the petition with respect to claims for malicious prosecution and wrongful use of legal process because those claims were timely filed. 

2.         The court denies the petition with respect to the remaining claims because Petitioners do not demonstrate that they failed to file a timely claim due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. 

3.         Petitioners’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.