Petition for Leave to File Late Claim (Judge Holly Fujie)


SILVIA MARTINEZ, as Administrator to the ESTATE OF THOMAS GONZALES CASTILLO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO: BC556901

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE CLAIM AND DEFENDANTS? DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dept. 98
1:30 p.m.
May 10, 2016

On September 5, 2014, Plaintiffs Silvia Martinez, as Administrator to the Estate of Thomas Gonzales Castillo (?Silvia?); Sophia Rose Hernandez Castillo, a Minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Josephine Castillo; Francisco Castillo, a Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Silvia Martinez; and Josephine Castillo filed this action for the death of Thomas Castillo (?Decedent?) on February 11, 2014. Santini Castillo (?Santini?) and Thomas Castillo, Jr. (?Thomas?) (collectively, ?Claimants?) were added to this action by the filing of a Second Amended Complaint (?SAC?) in August 2015. Their identities as additional heirs of Decedent?s was discovered through discovery in this action. Claimants submitted an application for leave to present their claims on November 13, 2015. Claimants now seek an order relieving them from Government Code section 945.4. The remaining Defendants to this action are Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Ursula Lozano (?Defendants?). Defendants also now demur to Plaintiffs? SAC.

Petition for Late Claim

Pursuant to Government Code section 945.4, except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, 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 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. A claim relating to a cause of action for death shall be presented no later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Cal. Gov. Code ? 911.2(a). When such a claim is not presented within six months, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim. Id., ? 911.4(a).

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. Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777. The court must grant the petition under Government Code section 946.6(c) if the claimant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence the application to the public entity was made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action, and that 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. Id., at 1777-78; Cal. Gov. Code ? 946.6(c)(1).

Filing a late claim application within one year after the accrual of a cause of action is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a late claim petition. Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 713. ?When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under Government Code section 946.6.? Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1779 (citing Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 488. ?The accrual date for presenting a government tort claim is identical to the accrual date that would apply in an ordinary action when no public entity is involved.? K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1233. ?Under the delayed discovery doctrine, accrual of a cause of action is postponed until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.? Id.

Statute of Limitations

Counsel for Plaintiffs declares that Claimants were unaware of their father?s death until they were contacted by a private investigator hired by Plaintiffs around mid-March of 2015. Declaration of Laura Sedrish (?Sedrish Decl.?), ? 4. Thomas avers that he was unaware of Decedent?s death until he was contacted by Plaintiffs? private investigator around mid-March of 2015. Declaration of Thomas Castillo, Jr., ? 4. He states that he had no reason to learn of Decedent?s death until the date of discovery because he was not in communication with his father or other family members at the time. Id., ? 5. Based on this, Thomas? cause of action began to accrue at mid-March of 2015. Therefore, Thomas filed a late claim application within one year after the accrual of his cause of action, and this Petition as to Thomas is within the Court?s jurisdiction.

As to Santini, Defendants contend the accrual date of his cause of action was not postponed, because Santini was notified of his father?s death before the funeral. Defendant relies on the deposition testimony of Silvia. Silvia testified that she had called Santini?s mother a few days before the funeral of Decedent to ?let them know to come to the funeral.? Deposition of Silvia Martinez, 55:4-56:3. Silvia?s deposition shows that Santini?s mother had notice of Decedent?s death. However, there is no indication that Santini?s mother informed Santini of the death and, if so, when. The evidence before the Court indicates that Santini did not learn of the death until mid-March of 2015, along with Thomas. Therefore, the Petition as to Santini is also properly within the Court?s jurisdiction.

Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect

The success of Claimants? Petition hinges on whether Claimants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to bring timely claims was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. If they have, then the Court must grant this Petition, as Defendants do not argue that they will suffer any prejudice.

Prior to the filing of the SAC, the parties entered into a Stipulation. The Stipulation states, at Paragraph 9, that in stipulating to the filing of the SAC, Defendants are not waiving any defenses they may have to the claims of Thomas and Santini, including but not limited to, Plaintiffs? compliance with the claims provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code Section 910, et seq., and the statute of limitations. Counsel for Defendants? conditioned her signing of the Stipulation on the inclusion of the Paragraph 9 language in two separate emails to Claimants? Counsel. Declaration of Jenus K. Nourafchan, ?? 5-6. Defendants therefore argue that Counsel was on notice that Defendants intended to challenge the claims based on non-compliance with the Tort Claims Act. Defendants further argue that Counsel failed to act diligently, in light of this notice, and cannot claim mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Counsel for Claimants asserts that she mistakenly misunderstood the purpose of the Stipulation and never calendared the filing date of the claims due to the mistaken belief that such claims did not need to be filed. Sedrish Decl., ? 8. Counsel also states that timely claims were filed for the original Plaintiffs in this action. Id., ? 3. Counsel therefore was fully aware of the requirements of the Tort Claims Act when she undertook to represent Claimants.

In light of Counsel?s awareness of the Tort Claims Act and the contents of the Stipulation between the parties, Counsel for Claimants was clearly apprised of the need to file claims for Claimants, but failed to do so until she had notice of Defendants? Demurrer. Counsel?s sole claim that she misunderstood the purpose of the Stipulation is not supported by any facts. The Court concludes that Claimants have therefore failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that their failure to comply with the claim requirements was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

In light of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED.

Demurrer to SAC

Defendants demur to the SAC on the grounds that Claimants fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, as their claims are barred due to noncompliance with Government Code sections 945.6 and 911.4. As the above discussion shows that Claimants failed to comply with the Tort Claims Act and Claimants? Petition for judicial relief from the bar to sue is denied, Defendants? Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Dated this 10th day of May, 2016

Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court