Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP03022, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCP03022 Hearing Date: January 22, 2025 Dept: 82
Benjamin
Gonzalez v. Morlin Asset Management, L.P., et al.
Case No. 24STCP03022
[Tentative] Order Granting Petition
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner
Benjamin Gonzalez (“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 Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (“Respondent” or “Metro”). This petition stems from a slip-and-fall
accident at Los Angeles Union Station on December 10, 2023. Petitioner served the petition and the notice
of the trial setting conference on or about October 9, 2024. Metro’s counsel did not appear at the trial
setting conference, so the court set dates and ordered Petitioner’s counsel to
provide notice. Petitioner’s counsel did
so on November 14, 2024. Metro did not
file an opposition to this petition. The
petition is granted.
BACKGROUND
According to his government claim, Petitioner was
born in 1985 and is 89 years old.
(Michael Decl. Exh. B.) On
December 10, 2023, Petitioner allegedly slipped and fell on an escalator at Los
Angeles Union Station. Petitioner
alleges that a slippery substance was left on the handrail to the escalator and
that when he went to grab the escalator, he fell backwards and was dragged to
the top of the escalator on his back.
Petitioner allegedly suffered severe abrasions to his arms and legs, and
neck and back pain. (Ibid.)
Petitioner
retained legal counsel on or about June 4, 2024, shortly before the six-month
claims filing deadline expired. (Id.
¶ 5.) According to a declaration of
Petitioner’s counsel filed with the petition, “[a] claim was not presented
within the six (6) month period provided by Section 911.2 of the Government
Code due to claimant suffering traumatic physical injuries which impaired his
ability to take care of himself, and which were necessary to making a sufficient
claim.” (Id. ¶ 4.)
Petitioner filed his government claim with Metro
on June 27, 2024, about two weeks after the six-month limitations period
expired. Petitioner also made a written
application to Metro for leave to present a late claim on June 27, 2024, within
one year of accrual of Petitioner’s claim.
In support of this late-claim application, Petitioner’s counsel
submitted a sworn declaration, which states:
As stated in the claim, claimant's cause of action occurred on December
10, 2023. Accordingly, the time for presentation of the claim expired on or
about June 10, 2024. The claim was not presented within the time provided in
Government Code §911.2 because (1) the claimant hospitalized for 10 days; (2)
was not represented by Counsel until June 4, 2024; (3) claimant did not know
the LACMTA had any responsibility for Claimant’s injuries until recently; (4)
and Claimant only learned of the LACMTA 's
involvement in causing Claimant harm via their attorneys and
investigation that has been completed within the last approximately three
weeks.
(Id. Exh. C at 1.) On July 15, 2024, Metro denied Petitioner’s
claim as untimely. (Id. ¶¶ 4-7,
Exh. A-D.) This petition followed.
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) The late claim application was made to the board and 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
A. Petitioner’s Claim and
Late-Clam Application Were Timely
Petitioner’s claim for damages arose on December 10, 2023, the date of
the accident. Petitioner filed his
government claim on June 27, 2024, about two weeks after the six-month
limitations period expired. Petitioner also
made a written application to Metro for leave to present a late claim on June
27, 2024, within one year of accrual of Petitioner’s claim. On July 15, 2024, Metro denied Petitioner’s
claim as untimely. (Michael Decl. ¶¶ 4-7,
Exh. A-D.) The court finds that the
late-claim application was made within a “reasonable time.” (See Gov. Code § 911.4(a)-(b).)
B. Petitioner Has Shown Mistake,
Inadvertence, Surprise or Excusable Neglect
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.” This is the same
showing required under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). (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 n.1.)
Here,
Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to establish that his failure to
file a timely government claim was caused by mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect either of himself or of his counsel. Although Petitioner has not submitted a
declaration himself, Petitioner’s counsel submitted a sworn
declaration with his late-claim application, which states:
As stated in the claim, claimant’s cause of action occurred on December
10, 2023. Accordingly, the time for presentation of the claim expired on or
about June 10, 2024. The claim was not presented within the time provided in
Government Code §911.2 because (1) the claimant hospitalized for 10 days; (2)
was not represented by Counsel until June 4, 2024; (3) claimant did not know
the LACMTA had any responsibility for Claimant’s injuries until recently; (4)
and Claimant only learned of the LACMTA’s involvement in causing Claimant harm
via their attorneys and investigation that has been completed within the last
approximately three weeks.
(Michael Decl. Exh. C at 1.) According
to a declaration of Petitioner’s counsel filed with the petition, “[a] claim
was not presented within the six (6) month period provided by Section 911.2 of
the Government Code due to claimant suffering traumatic physical injuries which
impaired his ability to take care of himself, and which were necessary to
making a sufficient claim.” (Id. ¶
4.) The government claim indicates that Petitioner was born in 1985 and is 89
years old, and that he suffered severe injuries in the accident. (Id. Exh. B.) The court also notes that Petitioner retained
counsel on June 4, 2024, a few days before the limitations period expired. Finally, the court notes that, according to
Petitioner’s counsel, she was retained on June 4, 2023, but did not identify
the correct defendant until after the deadline, which was June 10, 2024. These facts satisfy the standard under section
946(c)(1).
Because Petitioner has met his burden on that issue,
the burden shifted to Metro to prove prejudice.
(See Code Civ. Proc. § 946.6(c)(1); Moore
v. State of Calif. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 715, 726-727.) Metro has not filed an opposition and has not
proven prejudice. Accordingly, the
petition is granted. The court need not
reach Petitioner’s argument that the claim was not timely filed due to
Petitioner’s physical or mental incapacity under Government Code section
946.6(c)(5).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based
upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:
1. Petitioner’s petition for relief from
the claims requirement is granted.
2. Petitioner’s counsel may lodge a
proposed judgment if necessary.
3. Petitioner’s counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of service with the court.
IT
IS SO ORDERED
Date: January 22, 2025 ___________________________
Stephen
I. Goorvitch
Superior
Court Judge