Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP02898, Date: 2024-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02898    Hearing Date: December 13, 2024    Dept: 82

Daniel Williams,                                                       Case No. 24STCP02898

v.                                                                     Hearing: December 13, 2024

                                                                        Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

                                                                                    Department: 82                                      City of Los Angeles,                                                        Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch

[Tentative] Order Continuing Hearing on Petition for Late Claim

INTRODUCTION

             Petitioner Daniel Williams (“Petitioner”) petitions for an order relieving him from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4 with respect to his claim for damages against Respondent City of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or the “City”).  Respondent opposes the petition.  The court continues the hearing to January 13, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.     

BACKGROUND

            On December 4, 2023, Petitioner allegedly tripped and fell on “uneven broken asphalt” at 1119 Hoover Street in Los Angeles, California.  (Hayes Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  Petitioner allegedly sustained injuries to his left leg, back, neck, and shoulders and claims damages of $1,000,000.  (Ibid.)  On or about May 26, 2024—which was a Sunday—Petitioner’s attorney, Ernest J. Lingenfelter, directed an employee of the Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman to file a government claim against the City of Los Angeles.  (Lingenfelter Decl. ¶ 3.)  According to Lingenfelter, the claim “was completed and submitted on that date” through the City’s “claims presentation portal.”  (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)  Petitioner does not submit a declaration of the employee, who is not identified by Lingenfelter.  Nor does Petitioner provide a copy of the claim purportedly submitted on May 26, 2024. 

The deadline to submit a claim was June 4, 2024, per Government Code section 911.2.    On June 17, 2024, Petitioner submitted an untimely claim for damages.  Lingenfelter explains that this “supplemental” claim was submitted after he had not received “confirmation of the submission and filing” that was allegedly made on May 26, 2024.  (Id. ¶ 4 and Exh. 1, 2.)  On June 26, 2024, the City returned Petitioner’s claim without taking any action “[b]ecause the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law.”  (Hayes Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. B.) 

            On July 5, 2024, the City received documentation from Petitioner, which the City treated as an application for leave to present a late claim. (Hayes Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. C.)  Then, on or about July 10, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel sent a letter to the City of Los Angeles, City Clerk titled “Late Government Claim Supplemental Letter,” which stated in part:

Our office filed a claim through your online portal on May 26, 2024 which fell within the allotted 6 month period to file such claims for damages. After receiving no response, we filed a subsequent claim again through your online portal on June 17, 2024. Our office filed the claimed timely through your portal initially, and has done subsequent late filings along with emails sent to: attclaimsubmit@lacity.org as well as multiple calls and voicemails left at (213)978-1133 / (213)978-7081 / (213)978-7050 all to which we have received no response.

This letter is to advise that the claim was initially filed within the allotted timeframe of 6 months. It was filed electronically through your online portal on Sunday, May 26, 2024.

(Lingenfelter Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 2.)  On July 11, 2024, the City denied Petitioner’s application for leave to present a late claim.  (See Hayes Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. D.)  Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 9, 2024.    

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.) 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s claim for damages arose on December 4, 2023, when he alleged fell.  The deadline to file a claim was June 4, 2024.  Petitioner’s attorney asserts that a government claim was “submitted” on May 26, 2024, within the six-month filing period.  (Lingenfelter Decl. ¶ 3 and Exh. 2.)  If so, Petitioner does not need relief from the claims filing requirement of section 945.4.  Therefore, the court assumes without deciding that Petitioner first submitted a claim on June 17, 2024, after the deadline.  Petitioner made a written application to the City for leave to present a late claim on July 5, 2024, within one year of accrual of Petitioner’s claim.   (Hayes Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. C.)  The court also finds that the late-claim application was made within a “reasonable time.”  (See Gov. Code § 911.4(a)-(b).) 

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 Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).  (See Viles v. State (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 29.)  “[I]t 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.)

Petitioner’s counsel argues that his employee submitted a claim on or about May 26, 2024, but he or she never received “confirmation of the submission and filing, which is typical when these types of claims are submitted via the City’s claims presentation portal . . . .”  (Lingenfelter Decl. ¶ 4.)  As a result of this confusion, Petitioner’s counsel then submitted a claim after the deadline.  As Respondent’s counsel points out, there is no foundation for these statements, since Petitioner’s counsel’s declaration is based upon hearsay (from the employee).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         The court continues the hearing on this petition to January 13, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

            2.         The court authorizes Petitioner’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration from the employee that corroborates his account in detail, i.e., explains what happened and the specific facts leading to Petitioner’s counsel not discovering the problem until after the deadline.  The court orders Petitioner’s counsel to provide a copy of the claim purportedly submitted on May 26, 2024, or to provide an explanation why he cannot do so.

            3.         Petitioner’s counsel shall file his supplemental declaration on or before December 24, 2024.

            4.         Respondent’s counsel may file a response on or before January 6, 2024.

            5.         The court’s clerk shall provide notice.