Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP03368, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03368    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 82

Juan Sanchez v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al.

Case No. 24STCP03368

[Tentative] Order Granting Petition

 

BACKGROUND

 

            Petitioner Juan Sanchez (“Petitioner”) petitions for an order relieving him from the claims presentation requirements of Government Code section 945.4.  On July 22, 2023, Petitioner allegedly fell and was injured as a result of an incident that occurred when he was a passenger on Metro Rail A Line (formerly the Blue Line).  (Perez Decl. ¶ 3.)  The claim was due on January 22, 2024, per Government Code section 911.2(a).  On January 20, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel submitted a claim to Metro by regular mail.  (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  Petitioner’s counsel authenticates a proof of service for this mailing, which is signed under penalty of perjury by a staff member of counsel’s law office.  (Id. Exh. B.)  On January 30, 2024, “to ensure that the initial claim was delivered,” Petitioner’s counsel re-submitted the claim to Metro by United States Postal Service (“USPS”) priority mail, which includes a tracking number.  (Id. ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. C.)  Using the USPS tracking number, Petitioner’s counsel verified that the second claim was delivered to Metro.  (Ibid.)  Specifically, Petitioner’s counsel submits a printed receipt for the USPS mailing, which states that the “delivery status” for this parcel is “delivered.”  (Id. Exh. C.)

 

            On May 16, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel contacted Metro’s Office of Board Administration-Legal Services and was informed that neither the initial claim mailed on January 20, 2024, nor the follow-up copy mailed on January 30, 2024 (and verified as delivered by the USPS) was received by Metro.  (Id ¶ 7, Exh. D.)  On July 16, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel submitted to Metro an application to present a late claim.  (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. E.)  The application was accompanied by yet another copy of Petitioner’s claim.  (See id. Exh. E.)  On September 25, 2024, Metro denied Petitioner’s application.  (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. F.)  This petition followed.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

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 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

 

The court will assume that Petitioner’s timely claim on January 20, 2024, was not received by Respondent, and that Petitioner’s first claim was submitted on January 30, 2024.  Petitioner made a written application to Metro for leave to present a late claim on July 16, 2024, within one year of accrual of Petitioner’s claim.  (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. D.)  Contrary to Metro’s assertions, the court finds that the late-claim application was made within a “reasonable time.”  (See Gov. Code § 911.4(a)-(b); Oppo. 3:9-19 and 7:11-16.) 

 

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).  (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, the declaration of Petitioner’s counsel establishes that counsel mistakenly believed that a timely claim was submitted on January 20, 2024, and counsel did not discover the error until after the deadline had passed.  (Perez Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.)  The record is sufficient to establish that the failure to file a timely government claim was caused by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. 

 

In its opposition brief, Metro asserts that “[a]ccording to the U.S.P.S. tracking system, the tracking number associated with Petitioner's Claim for Damages indicates that a shipping label was created / delivered, but the associated parcel was never entered into the U.S.P.S. tracking system.”  (Oppo. 3:6-8.)  Metro does not cite evidence in support of this argument, such as a printout from USPS.  Rather, Metro apparently refers to certain unverified statements of a claims supervisor from Carl Warren & Company.  (See Perez Decl. Exh. D.)  On this record, the court finds the sworn declaration of Petitioner’s counsel and the attached USPS receipt to be stronger evidence that the second claim was mailed to Metro.  Regardless, there can be no dispute that Petitioner submitted his claim with his application to present a late claim.  This occurred within one year. 

 

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 established any prejudice in its opposition.  (Oppo. 7:19-23.)  Accordingly, the petition is granted.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

 

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

 

            1.         The petition for relief from the claims presentation requirements of Government Code section 945.4 is granted.

 

            2.         Petitioner may lodge a proposed order for the court’s signature if necessary.

 

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