Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCP04012, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP04012    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: 82

Varoujan Vehabedian                                             Case No. 24STCP04012

 

v.                                                                     Hearing: March 7, 2025

                                                                        Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

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

                                     

 

[Tentative] Order Granting Petition for Relief from Claims Presentation Requirement

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Petitioner Varoujan Vehabedian (“Petitioner”) allegedly tripped and fell on a sidewalk in the City of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or the “City”) on December 14, 2023.  Now, Petitioner seeks an order relieving him from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4.  The City opposes the petition, which is granted. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

            On December 14, 2023, Petitioner allegedly tripped and fell on a sidewalk in the City.  (Khachatrian Decl. ¶ 3.)  Petitioner, who was then 84 years old, allegedly suffered severe bodily injuries and momentarily lost consciousness because of the incident.  (Id. ¶ 4.) 

 

            On December 22, 2023, Petitioner retained LK Law Firm, P.C. to represent him regarding his claims.  (Id. ¶ 5.)  His file was created that day.  (Ibid.)  In early January 2024, a newly hired legal assistant at LK Law Firm, P.C. incorrectly calendared the filing deadline for Petitioner’s claim as June 24, 2024, instead of the correct deadline of June 14, 2024.  (Akopyan Decl. ¶¶ 1-3.)  On June 18, 2024, Petitioner’s attorney began to organize Petitioner’s medical records, which were only recently received given his continued treatment, in order to file the claim with Respondent.  (Khachatrian Decl. ¶ 6; see also Id. ¶ 4, Exh. B [showing medical treatments in May 2024].)  While reviewing the medical records, Petitioner’s attorney realized that the deadline had passed by four days.  She immediately filed a claim for damages on June 18, 2024.  (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. D.) 

 

            On June 26, 2024, Respondent rejected Petitioner’s claim as untimely.  (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. E.)  On September 18, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel submitted to Respondent an application to present a late claim.  (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. F.)  Respondent denied Petitioner’s application.  (Id. ¶ 9.)  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 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 14, 2023, the date of the incident.  Petitioner submitted a claim to Respondent on June 18, 2024, four days after the deadline.  (Khachatrian Decl. ¶ 6.)  On June 26, 2024, Respondent rejected Petitioner’s claim as untimely.  (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. E.)  Petitioner made a written application to Respondent for leave to present a late claim on September 18, 2024, within one year of accrual of Petitioner’s claim.  (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. F.)  The court 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).  (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 acted diligently by retaining legal counsel eight days after the trip-and-fall incident.  The evidence also shows that Petitioner’s counsel filed the claim late, by four days, because of an inadvertent calendaring error of a newly hired legal assistant at Petitioner’s counsel’s law firm.  (Khachatrian Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Akopyan Decl. ¶¶ 1-3.)  The record is sufficient to establish that the failure to file a timely government claim was caused by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  (See Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 911 [“relief has been deemed proper when—as here—an attorney relies on a member of his or her staff to perform certain tasks, including calendaring deadlines, and the staff member errs.”]; accord Nilsson v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 976, 980-981 [same].) 

 

Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s counsel did not act with reasonable diligence because she could have filed a claim “almost immediately after retention” and that “medical records are absolutely not required in order to present a timely claim.”  (Oppo. 8-9.)  The court disagrees with this argument.  As an initial matter, plaintiffs’ attorneys have six months to file the claim, and they are entitled to make use of this time to ensure that they file only meritorious claims.  In this case, Petitioner suffered “multiple 5-6 mm herniations throughout his cervical spine and lumbar spine as well as contusions, abrasions, and cognitive disturbances.”  (Khachatrian Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.)  As Respondent acknowledges, Petitioner’s medical records show that he received medical treatments starting in December 2023 and continuing through May 15, 2024.  (Ibid. and Oppo. 2, fn. 1.)  Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, a reasonably prudent attorney could elect to review all of Petitioner’s medical records, including those that were received in May or June 2024, before filing a claim.  Further, after the filing deadline was incorrectly calendared by the legal assistant, a reasonably prudent attorney could rely on that information in reviewing the case and filing a claim.  Accordingly, Respondent’s arguments are not persuasive. 

 

Because Petitioner has met his burden in proving that the failure to file a timely government claim was caused by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, the burden shifted to Respondent to prove prejudice.   (See Code Civ. Proc. § 946.6(c)(1); Moore v. State of Calif. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 715, 726-727.)   Respondent has not claimed, or proven, any prejudice as a result of a four-day delay in filing the claim. 

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

 

            Based upon the foregoing, the petition is granted.  Plaintiff is excused from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4.  Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court. 

 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED

 

 

Dated: March 7, 2025                                                 ______________________

                                                                                    Stephen I. Goorvitch

                                                                                    Superior Court Judge