CLAIM PRESENTATION CASES
Summaries provided by Kimberly Y. Chin, Allen Glaessner Hazelwood & Werth, LLP CLAIM PRESENTATION N.G. v. County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63 Summary: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a sexual assault victim had not established mistake or excusable neglect to support her petition for relief from the claim filing requirement. Discussion: On October 5, 2017, Petitioner N.G. (“Petitioner”) was driving to a motel with her daughter after an argument with her husband. San Diego County Deputy Sheriff Richard Fischer (“Fischer”), along with other deputies, pulled her over because Petitioner’s husband had falsely reported that she was driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Fischer later called Petitioner on her cell phone and showed up at her motel room. He told Petitioner to go to the bathroom where he closed the door and hugged her, telling her she was gorgeous. Fischer then left but later called Petitioner and returned to her hotel room where he again directed her to the bathroom and hugged and groped her. Petitioner then submitted a proposed claim for damages to the County of San Diego (“County”) on June 25, 2018, 81 days after the six-month period for filing a claim expired. She also filed an application for leave to file a late claim. The County denied leave to file a late claim. On October 1, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition with the court for relief from the claim presentation requirement, alleging that he failure to present a timely claim was the result of excusable neglect or mistake. Petitioner submitted a declaration in support of the petition in which she claimed she was scared to report Fischer; she was mentally depressed after the incident; and she feared no one would believe her. She also declared that she ultimately contacted a lawyer and filed a claim with the County because she saw a news report about Fischer being accused of hugging and groping other women. Finally, she stated that until she sought legal advice, she was unaware of the six-month claim filing deadline. The trial court denied Petitioner’s petition, finding that she had not presented any evidence that she had a physical or mental disability which limited her ability to function or seek out counsel and thus, had not made the exceptional showing to establish excusable neglect. Petitioner appealed. On review, the appellate court confirmed that relief on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is only available on a showing that the claimant’s failure to present a claim was reasonable and that a showing of reasonable diligence is required to establish that the petitioner acted as a reasonably prudent person. The appellate court further noted that in certain exceptional cases, excusable neglect may be found based on extreme instances of physical or mental disability or on deliberating emotional trauma, but that it took an exceptional showing by establishing that the trauma had substantially interfered with the petitioner’s ability to function in daily life, take care of one’s personal and business affairs, or seek out legal counsel. However, Petitioner had not made such a showing.
Daneshmand v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 923 Summary: The one-year claim presentation period applied to claims relating to overpayment of water rates and began to run from the date of last payment due. Discussion: The City of San Juan Capistrano (“City”) approved tiered water rates effective February 1, 2010, which were in effect until June 30, 2014. These tiered water rates were later challenged and found to be unconstitutional. On June 16, 2015, the City approved a water rate fee refund program under which any ratepayer who was overcharged between August 28, 2013 and June 30, 2014 would receive as a refund or utility credit the difference between the amount paid and the amount that would have been paid. Page 16
