Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCP00751, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP00751 Hearing Date: October 10, 2022 Dept: 50
|
BRIAN WALLACE,
et al., Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through its DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants. |
Case
No.: |
22STCP00751 |
|
Hearing Date: |
October
10, 2022 |
|
|
Hearing
Time: |
10:00
a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: PETITION FOR ORDER GRANTING RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CLAIM FILING REQUIREMENTS |
||
Background
On March 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Brian Wallace and
Tiffany Wallace (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Petition for Relief from
Government Claim Filing Requirements in this action against the State of
California, by and through its Department of Transportation (“Defendant”).
Plaintiffs
indicate that on the morning of September 13, 2020, they
were involved in a catastrophic car accident on the northbound 57
freeway. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶ 1.) As discussed in further detail below,
Plaintiffs provide evidence that they and their counsel presented multiple
government claims to the State of California concerning the accident. Plaintiffs’
government claims assert that the State/Caltrans failed to install safety
guardrails (and other forms of protection) on the section of Highway 57 where
the accident occurred. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 2.)
On December 16, 2021, the Department of General
Services (“DGS”) sent two letters to Plaintiffs’ counsel pertaining to separate
claims for Tiffany Wallace and Brian Wallace, which each indicate, inter
alia, that “[t]he Government Claims Program (GCP) received the claim you presented
on 09/09/2021. GCP staff reviewed your claim and determined that the cause of
action accrued 09/13/2020, more than six months prior to the presentation date
of the claim. Therefore, the claim was presented late, pursuant to
Plaintiffs
now seek an order granting
them relief from the government claim filing requirements of
Discussion
Arguments
Concerning Waiver of Defenses
As an
initial matter,
Plaintiffs provide evidence
that on July 15, 2021, Tiffany
Wallace sent two government claims to the State of California on behalf of herself
and Brian Wallace concerning the accident. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶ 15, Ex.
2.) On September 9, 2021, Tiffany Wallace sent an email to DGS indicating, “[w]e received a notice that these two
claims are not in compliance with requirements
of $25.00 fee, however the fees for both claims
were submitted with each form. Is there any way to correct this…” (Tiffany Wallace
Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 3.) After an email exchange regarding the checks, DGS sent an
email to Tiffany Wallace on September 9, 2021, stating, inter alia, that
“[s]ince you presented the claim on 7/19/21, that is the date that we will
honor as long as we receive payment before an analyst is
assigned to your claim.” (Ibid.) On
September 15, 2021, DGS sent another email to Tiffany Wallace indicating, inter
alia, “
Tiffany Wallace
indicates that she never received any further written correspondence from DGS
about these claims. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs argue that accordingly, pursuant to
Defendant counters that on August 17, 2021, DGS sent two separate
identical letters to Brian Wallace and Tiffany Wallace indicating, inter
alia, that “[t]he
documents you submitted on 07/19/2021, failed to comply with
In the reply, Plaintiffs note
that DGS’s August 17, 2021 letters discuss Government Code requirements
concerning timely claims and the late claim process, but that such requirements
are not applied to Plaintiffs’ claims.
In any event, the Court
notes that the instant petition is captioned as one for relief from claim
filing requirements. The Petition’s notice indicates that Plaintiffs “will move
the court for an order granting them relief from the government claim filing
requirements of
Claim
Amendments and Relief From Claim Filing Requirements
Plaintiffs
also provide evidence that on September 9,
2021 Plaintiffs’ counsel presented government claims to DGS on behalf of Plaintiffs, which each included
“late claim explanations.” (Girardi Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 9.) On December 16, 2021, DGS
sent two letters to Plaintiffs’ counsel as to the separate claims for Tiffany
Wallace and Brian Wallace, which each indicate, inter alia, that “[t]he
Government Claims Program (GCP) received the claim you presented on 09/09/2021.
GCP staff reviewed your claim and determined that the cause of action accrued
09/13/2020, more than six months prior to the presentation date of the claim.
Therefore, the claim was presented late, pursuant to
Plaintiffs assert that the
second set of claims they presented on September 9, 2021
are amendments to the original
claims they presented on July 19, 2021, and “
Lastly,
Plaintiffs argue that alternatively, under
Pursuant
to
As set forth above, on January 13, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel received a letter from DGS
concerning Brian Wallace’s September 9, 2021 claim, which indicates, inter
alia, that “[t]he late application is denied for failure to meet the
requirements of
Pursuant to
The instant petition was
filed on March 3, 2022, within six months of DGS’s January 13, 2022 letter. In
addition, as Plaintiffs indicate that no letter was received from DGS
indicating that Tiffany Wallace’s late claim application was denied. Pursuant
to Government Code section 911.6, subdivision (c), 45 days after September 9, 2022 is October 24, 2022. The instant petition was filed within
six months of this date.
Pursuant
to
“(1) 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
“(5) The person who
sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was physically or mentally
incapacitated during any of the time specified in
“
Plaintiffs’
second set of claims were presented on September 9, 2021, less than one year after September 13, 2020, the
date of the incident listed on the claims. (Girardi Decl., ¶ 12, Ex.
9.)[3] As
discussed, DGS’s December 16, 2021 letters pertaining to Plaintiffs’ September
9, 2021 claims state, inter alia, “[y]ou enclosed with your claim an
application for leave to present a late claim (late application).” (Girardi
Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 10.)
With regard to Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1), Plaintiffs
assert that Tiffany Wallace presented her government claims late due to
excusable neglect, based on her lack of knowledge, combined with her diligent
search for a lawyer. “The
showing required for relief under
Plaintiffs
provide evidence that Tiffany Wallace is a real estate agent and not a lawyer. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶ 3.) For many months, Tiffany Wallace did not know that she had a potential cause
of action against any government entity for the condition of the highway, and did not know that there was a government claim filing
requirement. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶ 3.) Tiffany Wallace began her search for
an attorney in or about October 2020, with the assistance of a friend. (Tiffany
Wallace Decl., ¶ 5.) They contacted seven different attorneys at different law
firms over the months of October 2020 through June 2021, who all rejected
providing legal representation to Plaintiffs. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶¶ 5,
9-14.) In addition,
Tiffany Wallace had to
provide round-the-clock care for Brian Wallace starting December 7, 2020.
(Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) It was not until June 10, 2021 that Tiffany
Wallace first learned of a government claim requirement when an attorney
rejected her case. (Tiffany Wallace Decl., ¶ 14.)
In the opposition, Defendant notes that
“
(
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds
that Tiffany Wallace has demonstrated good cause for relief under
Plaintiffs
also assert that Brian
Wallace was suffering from the kind of incapacity that qualifies as a ground
for relief from the government claim
requirements under
As set forth above, the
subject accident took place on September 13, 2020. (Brian Wallace Decl., ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs
provide evidence that Brian Wallace’s injuries from the accident were so severe
that he is now a paraplegic. (Brian Wallace Decl., ¶ 2.) Brian Wallace
indicates that he was hospitalized at Pomona Valley Hospital for approximately
one month after the
accident, where he underwent multiple
spinal surgeries. (Brian Wallace Decl., ¶ 4.) After Pomona Valley Hospital,
Brian Wallace was transferred to Loma Linda Rehabilitation Hospital, and from
there he had to return to hospital care at Loma Linda Hospital’s cardiac unit for
a cardiac afibrillation issue. (Brian Wallace Decl., ¶ 5.) After that, Brian
Wallace was transferred back to the Loma Linda Rehabilitation Hospital until he
was released to go home on December 7, 2020. (Brian Wallace Decl., ¶ 5.) Brian
Wallace indicates that he required intense care once he was home, was on heavy
pain medications, and was not alert or coherent much of the time. (Brian
Wallace Decl., ¶ 6.) In addition, Brian Wallace states that during this time it
would have been impossible for him to seek out an attorney to represent him in
regard to the subject accident because he could not make phone calls and was
not coherent enough to decide who to call. (Brian Wallace Decl., ¶ 7.) In
addition, he did not know about the requirement to make a government claim.
(Brian Wallace Decl., ¶ 7.)
As
set forth above, “[t]he court
shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4,” if,
among other requirements, the court finds that certain circumstances are
applicable, including that “[t]he person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was
physically or mentally incapacitated during any of the time specified in
In
its opposition, Defendant asserts that Brian Wallace was not hospitalized for
the entire duration of the claims period. But as set forth above,
Defendant also asserts that “[d]espite his injuries,
Mr. Wallace had his wife searching for attorneys within weeks of the subject
accident,” but fails to cite to any evidence in support of this assertion.
(Opp’n at p. 9:19-20.) In addition, Defendant asserts that per certain
authorities it cites, Brian Wallace’s “incapacitation does not excuse his
failure to follow the claims requirements.” (Opp’n at p. 9:22.) The Court notes
that Defendant’s analysis of the case law it cites does not reference
Based on the foregoing, the
Court finds that Brian
Wallace has demonstrated good cause for relief under
Lastly, Defendant notes that almost two years have passed since the
subject accident and asserts that this delay
results in prejudice to Defendant’s defense and ability to calculate and
respond to risk. But Defendant does not further articulate how the delay would
result in prejudice to its defense, and as
Plaintiffs note, the opposition does not present any evidence to support this
assertion.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants
Plaintiffs’ petition for an
order relieving them from Government Code section
945.4 pursuant to Government Code section 946.6.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this
Order.
DATED:
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
[1]The Court notes
that Mr. Girardi’s declaration is unsigned. Because Defendant did not object,
the Court has treated the declaration as if it is signed. However, Plaintiffs
must file a signed declaration as soon as possible.
[2]Pursuant to Government Code section 911.2, “[a]
claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person…shall be
presented…not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”
[3]As discussed, pursuant to Government Code
section 946.6, “[t]he 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…” Pursuant
to Government Code section 911.4, subdivision (b), “[t]he application shall be presented to the public entity as
provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915)
within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause
of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.”