Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 25STCP00108, Date: 2025-04-16 Tentative Ruling

1. An Order allowing leave to present a “late claim” against City of Los Angeles

On January 14, 2025, Petitioner Arnita Haley (Petitioner) filed a Petition for Leave to File a Civil Action against Respondent City of Los Angeles (City). The underlying action stems from Petitioner’s trip and fall accident at the 3500 block of Martin Luther King Blvd. in the City of Los Angeles on October 21, 2023. Petitioner failed to timely file a government claim and seeks relief from the requirements of Government Code section 945.4 based on the mistake of his attorney.

On January 17, 2025, Petitioner served notice of the hearing date on the instant Petition.

Replies were due on or before April 9, 2025. As of April 11, 2025, the court has not received a reply.

Prior to filing a suit against a public entity, a plaintiff must comply with the Government Tort Claims Act, which states, in part: “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . .” (Gov. Code, § 945.4)

A claim for death or injury to person or personal property shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) When a claim required to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim. (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) The 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 and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application. (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).)

If an injured party who has failed to timely file a claim has submitted a written application to the public entity for leave to present such claim and the application has been denied, the injured party may petition to the court for relief from the claim requirements. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (a); Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777.) The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).)

The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 and grant the petition under Section 946.6, subdivision (c) if the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence the application to the public entity under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action and was denied or deemed denied, and that one or more of the following is applicable: (1) the failure to present the claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim, (2) the person who sustained the injury was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for presentation of the claim, (3) the person who sustained the injury was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 and failed to present a claim by reason of that disability, or (4) the person who sustained the injury died before the expiration of the time specified in Section 911.2. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c); Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778.) A petitioner may not successfully argue excusable neglect when she fails to take any action in pursuit of the claim within the six-month period. (Id., at 1778-1779.)

Petitioner contends leave is warranted due to Counsel’s excusable neglect coupled with Petitioner’s personal family losses, physical health, and mental health. City argues that Petitioner has not met her burden of showing mistake or excusable neglect because Counsel committed inexcusable neglect by failing to timely file the government claim after being provided all the pertinent information and that Counsel did not diligently pursue Petitioner’s case for eleven months, which cannot be grounds for relief from the requirements of Government Code section 946.6. City also argues that if the Petition is granted, they will be prejudiced by being deprived of the opportunities to conduct an early investigation of Petitioner’s claim and consider early settlement to save in litigation fees and costs.[1]

Here, leave to present the late claim is not warranted. Notably, Petitioner lacks excusable neglect. Excusable neglect is an act or omission that might be expected of a prudent person under similar circumstances. (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1294.) First, Petitioner engaged Counsel “[s]hortly after” the fall which occurred on October 21, 2023. (Rabineau Decl. ¶ 2.) Petitioner told Counsel about the incident except for the exact location of the fall. (Ibid.) Second, Petitioner admits that counsel told her to to provide the exact location but “made no real efforts” to “find the exact location until late August” 2024. (Hakey Decl.) Third, Counsel did not hear from Petitioner “for several months” and “did not contact her again until after the six-month period elapsed.” (Rabineau Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Fourth, it is undisputed that the six month claim presentment deadline was on or before April 21, 2024 but Counsel did not file a claim until September 10, 2024. (Rabineau Decl. ¶ 4.) A reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances would not wait several months without following up with their client for additional claim information.

Accordingly, the court DENIES the Petition for leave to present a late claim.

[1] The court is unconvinced City’s substantial rights will be prejudiced. While City did not conduct an early investigation, there is no indication it cannot now conduct an investigation or that key pieces of evidence are unavailable. Further, the costs of litigation do not establish prejudice. However, the court need not reach this point due to Counsel’s inexcusable neglect.