In Lincoln Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (Jones), published March 3, 2020, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a writ directing a trial court to reverse its decision granting a petition under Government Code section 946.6 for relief from claim requirements. The plaintiff's son was injured during high school football tryouts. The plaintiff presented a timely claim, through an attorney, on her son's behalf to the school district. Four months later, the plaintiff presented an application for leave to present late claim to the district for her own injuries, based on the impact the son's injuries had on her life. The application asserted that the plaintiff did not realize her son would have lifelong problems earlier. The plaintiff submitted a declaration with the claim stated that she was not aware of the degree of her son's injuries earlier, and that she was so busy taking care of her son, she was not functioning properly and was unaware of her right to file a claim. The application argued mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The district allowed the application to be denied by operation of law. The plaintiff then petitioned the court for relief under section 946.6, supported by the same declaration as the application. In its opposition, the district presented social media evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the severity of the son's injuries before her son presented his claim, and that she had hired an attorney to present a claim for her son. The court ruled that the evidence contradicted the plaintiff's reasons for presenting a late claim. The court allowed the plaintiff to file supplemental briefing. Her attorney then submitted a declaration that the plaintiff had retained him to present a claim for her within the six months to do so, but that he and his secretary failed to calendar the last day to present a claim for the plaintiff, and so forgot to present a claim for her as well as for her son. The trial court found that the new evidence raised concerns about the plaintiff's credibility, but nevertheless granted relief because the plaintiff had shown excusable neglect.
The court of appeal ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by granting relief. Interpreting Government Code sections 911.4 (governing late-claim applications to public entities) and 946.6 (governing petitions for relief to courts), the court concluded that the language in both statutes requiring the claimant to show the "reason" for the delay in presenting the claim refers not to the conclusion of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, but to the factual basis that would justify the conclusion that the delay was based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Further, since both statutes refer to "the reason" for the delay, the statutes require that "the reason" offered to the superior court and to the public entity must be the same. While section 946.6 allows a claimant to offer additional evidence in the petition to support the reason provided, the factual reason itself must be the same in the application and the petition.
The plaintiff here presented the same factual reason in the application and petition, but then presented additional evidence that provided a new reason that was not contained in the application,and contradicted the reason set forth in the application and petition. The trial court noted this, but concluded public policy favored relief. That was an abuse of discretion. The plaintiff cannot advance a factual theory of excusable neglect entirely different from the one previously presented to the entity; and the plaintiff must demonstrate the truth of the original theory by a preponderance of the evidence.
Leave a Reply