Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV32505, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV32505 Hearing Date: August 3, 2022 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: August 3, 2022 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
CASE: Crystal Anderson v. 2600 Wilshire Blvd.
CASE NO.: 20STCV32505 
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE GOVERNMENT CLAIM
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Crystal Anderson
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Housing
Authority of the City of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as 2600 Wilshire
Boulevard.
CASE
HISTORY:
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff sued the Housing
Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), erroneously named as 2600
Wilshire Boulevard, alleging that HACLA improperly issued a voucher for a
two-bedroom unit and subsequently downgraded her voucher.
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a
late government claim.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
file a Late Government Claim is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
The
California Tort Claims Act states that no person may sue a public entity or
public employee for money or damages unless a timely written claim has been
presented to and denied by the public entity. (Gov. Code § 945.4.) Generally, a
claim must be presented to the public entity within six months after the
accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code. § 911.2.) However, a party may
apply for leave to present a late claim provided that it is presented “within a
reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of
action.” (Gov. Code § 911.4(b).) The one-year period may be tolled for several
enumerated reasons, including when the injured person is mentally incapacitated
and does not have a guardian or conservator. (Gov. Code § 911.4(c)(1).)
Under
Government Code section 946.6, when an application for leave to present a late claim
is denied, a party may petition a court for relief from section 945.4. (Gov.
Code § 946.6(a).) 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” and is subject to at least one
of several enumerated reasons for failure to present a timely claim. (Gov. Code
§ 946.6(c).)
Although
Plaintiff cites and references subdivision (c)(1) of section 946.6, authorizing
relief from a late-filed claim for excusable neglect, the substance of
Plaintiff’s argument is based on her mental capacity, or lack thereof, during
all of the time specified for presentation of the claim. This argument is
properly raised under subdivision (c)(4) of section 946.6. The Court will
therefore consider the motion on that basis.
When a party
seeks to establish mental incapacity, that party has the burden of doing so by a
preponderance of the evidence. (Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of
Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 717.) A mental incapacity is one that
prevents the party from appreciating or communicating the nature of the injury.
(Favorite v. County of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 835, 839-41.)
Plaintiff
states that she was unable to communicate the nature of her situation or her
injuries because she was on medication, including opiates, prescribed for other
physical injuries which she had sustained. (Declaration of Crystal Anderson ISO
Mot. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff has provided photos of the medicine bottles, and
approvals for her requests for an X-ray and CT scan. (Anderson Decl. Exh. D.) However,
Plaintiff also filed the original Complaint in this action on August 26, 2020,
which is evidence that, by that time, she was able to communicate the nature of
the injury to the Court. Although the Court sustained the demurrer for numerous
substantial defects, the Court did not find that the Complaint was so defective
as to be completely unintelligible. (See April 11, 2022 Minute Order.)
Plaintiff offers no explanation to
show that she was so incapacitated as to be unable to communicate the nature of
the injury at the time she filed the Complaint. As alleged in the Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s original housing voucher was approved on March
12, 2020. (SAC ¶ 14.) Plaintiff does not state when her voucher was downgraded
in the Second Amended Complaint. However, even if the downgrade happened the
same day as the approval, Plaintiff filed the Complaint less than six months
after the approval. Thus, the time to file a section 911.2 claim began to run
no later than August 26, 2020 under section 911.4 subdivisions (b) and (c).
Therefore, the last date that the late claim could have been filed was August 26,
2021, under section 911.4’s one-year requirement. Plaintiff concedes that she
did not file a section 911.2 claim during that time. (Anderson Decl. ¶ 2, Exh.
A [claim presented on May 23, 2022].) Under section 946.6, the Court therefore
lacks jurisdiction to grant relief from the requirements of section 945.4.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Late Government Claim is DENIED.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 3, 2022 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.