Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP03259, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCP03259 Hearing Date: April 30, 2025 Dept: 82
Veronica Gildo Ramirez, et al. Case No. 24STCP03259
v.
Hearing:
April 30, 2025
Location:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los
Angeles Metropolitan Department:
82 Transportation Authority
Judge: Stephen I.
Goorvitch
[Tentative] Order Denying Petition for Relief
from Government Code section 945.4
INTRODUCTION
Petitioners
Veronica Gildo Ramirez and Dave Ramirez (collectively, “Petitioners”) seek an
order relieving them from the claim presentation requirements of Government
Code section 945.4 with respect to Petitioners’ claims for damages against
Respondents Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”)
and California Transportation Authority (“CalTrans”). The petition is denied.
BACKGROUND
On
October 29, 2023, while at an event called “ArroyoFest,” Petitioner Veronica
Gildo Ramirez (“Mrs. Ramirez”) “twisted her ankle on uneven pavement causing it
to break and causing her to fall on a public highway.” (Suppl. Sinanyan Decl. ¶ 3.) “An open reduction internal fixation surgery
was performed for Mrs. Ramirez on November 9, 2023 and she was not cleared to
return to work until January 28, 2024.”
(Ibid.) Mrs. Ramirez’s
husband, Petitioner David Ramirez (“Mr. Ramirez”), allegedly suffered a loss of
consortium. (See ibid.)
Over
six months later, on June 29, 2024, Petitioners retained the law firm Badalyan
Sinanyan APC to represent them for their injuries. (See id. ¶ 5.) After investigating the claims that same day,
Petitioners’ attorney, Aileen Sinanyan, “discovered that ‘ArroyoFest’ was in
fact hosted by Respondent METRO and that this would be considered a government
claim.” (Id. ¶ 5.) On July 3, 2024, Sinanyan prepared and
submitted a government claim to Metro and an application for leave to present a
late claim. (See id. ¶ 6.) Metro did not respond to the government claim
and application, which were denied by operation of law. (See ibid.)
On
November 19, 2024, Sinanyan “received a phone call from a claims examiner of
Carl Warren & Company, … notifying [her] that Respondent [CalTrans] had
potential culpability for the incident because they are responsible for the
maintenance of the freeways in California.”
(Id. ¶ 8.) Over one year
after the accident, on November 20, 2024, Sinanyan prepared and submitted an
application for leave to present a late claim to CalTrans. (See ibid.) CalTrans did not respond to the application,
which was denied by operation of law. (See
ibid.) 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) 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. (Gov. Code § 946.4(b).)
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. (See 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. Petitioners’ Application to CalTrans Was
Untimely
Petitioners’
application to file a late claim to CalTrans was untimely. The accident occurred on October 29, 2023, which
is the operative date. “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; see also Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34
Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034 [statute of limitations for loss of consortium accrues
on the date of the spouse’s injury].) Petitioners
did not file their application until November 20, 2024. Government
Code section 911.4(b) states that “[t]he application shall be
presented to the public entity … within a reasonable time not to exceed
one year after the accrual of the cause of
action ….” (Code Civ. Proc. § 911.4(b) [emphasis
added].) The deadline to submit the
application is jurisdictional:
Filing a late-claim application within one year after
the accrual of a cause of action is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a
claim-relief petition . . . [and] [w]hen the underlying application to file a
late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of
action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under Government Code
section 946.6.
(Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1767, 1779.) Therefore, the
petition is denied with respect to CalTrans.
B. Petitioners
Demonstrate No Excusable Neglect Regarding Metro
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.” As discussed,
Petitioners’ claims accrued on October 29, 2023, but they did not retain
counsel until June 29, 2024, which was eight months later.
Petitioners do not
show that they were reasonably diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim
during the six-month limitations period.
Petitioners have not submitted declarations of their own explaining what
steps they took to investigate the claim or the delay in retaining
counsel. In her own declaration,
attorney Sinanyan declares:
Mrs. Ramirez did not intend to file a claim until it
was clear to her that she would be suffering from the consequences of this
accident for several years to come and potentially for the rest of her life
because she is not a litigious person. In fact, this is the first ever claim
for injuries that Mrs. Ramirez has attempted to make in her life. She sought
counsel upon her realization of the potential permanency of her injuries which
she worries she will now suffer from for the rest of her life. She also had no
knowledge that Respondent METRO, a governmental entity, was responsible for the
organization of the event.
(Sinanyan Decl. ¶
7.) Petitioners’ ambivalence about
whether to pursue legal action shows a lack of reasonable diligence. Petitioners admit that Mrs. Ramirez broke her
ankle and suffered “significant bodily injuries” on October 29, 2023. “An open reduction internal fixation surgery
was performed for Mrs. Ramirez on November 9, 2023 and she was not cleared to
return to work until January 28, 2024.”
(Id. ¶ 3.) Mr. Ramirez
suffered loss of consortium during this time.
(Ibid.) These injuries
would have caused a reasonable person to investigate the claim and retain an
attorney.
Petitioners contend that they
believed the organizing party of “ArroyoFest” was comprised of many businesses
and not a governmental entity. (Sinanyan
Decl. ¶ 4.) Petitioners have not
submitted declarations attesting to this belief, which, in any event, was not reasonable. The petition includes a flyer stating that
ArroyoFest was “presented by Metro.”
(Pet. Exh. D.) Petitioners’
attorney also was able to determine on June 29, 2024, the same day she was
retained, that ArroyoFest was hosted by Metro.
(Sinanyan Decl. ¶ 5.) Thus,
Petitioners should have discovered that Metro could have legal responsibility
for the ArroyoFest.
Based upon the foregoing,
Petitioners have not demonstrated mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect. Therefore, Metro is not
required to prove prejudice. (See Code
Civ. Proc. § 946.6(c)(1); Moore v. State of California (1984) 157
Cal.App.3d 715, 726-727.)
C. Petitioners
Do Not Demonstrate Incapacity
Petitioners argue that they were not
able to file the claim earlier because Mrs. Ramirez was physically and mentally
impaired pursuant to Government Code section 946.6(c)(5). This section states in relevant part as
follows:
(c) The court shall relieve the petitioner from the
requirements of Section 945.4 if the court
finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made
within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was
denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one
or more of the following is applicable:
….[¶]
(5) The person who sustained the alleged injury,
damage, or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during any 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,
provided the application is presented within six months of the person no longer
being physically or mentally incapacitated, or a year after the claim
accrues, whichever occurs first.
(Gov. Code § 946.6(c)(5), emphasis
added.)
Petitioners
do not satisfy the appropriate standard:
“The decisions … apply the disability provision in just this way: they
analyze the extent of the injured person's disability and determine whether it
was so great as to preclude filing a timely claim or authorizing someone to do
so.” (Draper v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 52 Cal.3d 502, 509; see
also Lutz v. Tri-County Hospital (1986)
179 Cal.App.3d 807, 811 [“Importantly, Lutz does
not suggest how his claimed paraplegia prevented him from attending to his
claim within the 100-day time limit.”].)
Even in the absence of Petitioners’ declarations, it is clear that
Petitioners were not incapacitated within the meaning of section 946.6(c)(5). The declaration of Petitioners’ counsel is
entirely conclusory and lacks foundation.
(See Sinanyan Decl. ¶ 3.)
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based
upon the foregoing, Petitioners’ petition for relief from Government Code
section 945.4 is denied. The court’s
clerk shall provide notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: April 30,
2025 ______________________
Stephen
I. Goorvitch
Superior
Court Judge