Opinion
E033765.
10-23-2003
TIMOTHY HARRISON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Dean Donin for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Andrea Lynn Hoch, Chief Assistant Attorney General, James M. Schiavenza, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marsha S. Miller, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Pamela J. Holmes, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent State of California. Rinos & Martin, Dimitrios C. Rinos and Laura L. Stephan for Defendant and Respondent Riverside County Regional Medical Center.
1. Introduction
Plaintiff Timothy Harrison appeals from an order denying his petition for relief to file a late complaint. Plaintiff argues that, under Government Code section 946.6, the trial court should have granted relief based on counsels mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
All further statutory references will be to the Government Code unless otherwise stated.
We conclude that plaintiff failed to comply with the statute of limitations requirement of the Government Tort Claims Act. Section 946.6, which provides relief for the late filing of a claim with a public entity, not a complaint in the superior court, does not apply under the circumstances. We affirm the courts order.
Section 810 et seq.
2. Factual and Procedural History
On September 4, 2001, plaintiff submitted a government tort claim to the State Board of Control (the State). Defendant alleged that he received negligent medical treatment during his incarceration at a facility in Chino, California. On October 26, 2001, the State sent plaintiff a letter denying his claim. In the letter, the State warned defendant that he had six months to file a court action on his claim.
On August 6, 2002, plaintiff filed a "Petition for Relief from Late Filing of Complaint" under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 against the State of California Department of Corrections and the Riverside County Regional Medical Center (the County). Plaintiff served defendants with a copy of the petition in December 2002. After both defendants filed their oppositions, the court denied the petition.
3. Discussion
Plaintiff claims that section 946.6 authorizes the trial court to excuse him from failing to file a timely complaint on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
Plaintiff appears to have abandoned his argument for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (Mortgage Associates, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (2002) 105 Cal. App.4th 28, 36, footnote 3.)
Section 945.4 of the Government Tort Claims Act requires that a plaintiff present a written claim directly to the public entity before filing a lawsuit against that public entity for money or damages. A claim relating to a cause of action for personal injury must be filed with the public entity within six months after the accrual of the cause of action. If the plaintiff fails to file a timely claim, the plaintiff may apply to the public entity to file a late claim and then may petition the superior court for relief from the claims requirement. Section 946.6 sets forth the procedure and the criteria for obtaining relief from the superior court. The court may grant the petition if the court finds both that the plaintiff submitted his application to the public entity to file a late claim within a reasonable time and that other circumstances justify the late filing, including that the plaintiff failed to present the claim because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the public entity cannot demonstrate any prejudice.
See also Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 767; Ard v. County of Contra Costa (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 339, 343.
Section 911.2; see also Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 708.
Sections 911.4, subdivision (a), and 946.6; see also Ard v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at page 343.
Section 946.6, subdivision (c)(1); see Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 275.
Although section 946.6 provides relief from the claims filing requirement, it does not provide relief from the statute of limitations requirement. The statute of limitations for the commencement of actions against a public entity is mandatory and requires strict compliance.
See Ard v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at page 346.
Section 945.6 sets forth the applicable statute of limitations. Under section 945.6, if the public entity gave notice as required under section 913, then the plaintiff must file his action against the public entity within six months. In responding to a claim similar to the one presented here, one court explained as follows: "In effect appellants ask us to rewrite the Tort Claim Act of 1963. The curative provision for those who file late claims has an obvious rationale that does not apply to those who file claims and then fail to file complaints within the prescribed period. A late claim suggests late discovery of the proper means of seeking redress. But once a claimant has filed his claim, he demonstrates familiarity with the statutory procedures governing his grievance, and can reasonably be charged with knowledge of the time limitations that are part of that procedure. [¶] We are governed here by the tort claims statute, which does not indulge late suitors to the same extent it does late claimants. Appellants right to sue the state and its political subdivisions, having been formulated by statute, is circumscribed by the limitations within that statute." The statutory scheme does not allow for substantial compliance with the statute of limitations requirement.
Section 945.6, subdivision (a)(1).
Hunter v. County of Los Angeles (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 820, 822; see also Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Protection Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 927, 933.
Hunter v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 262 Cal.App.2d at page 822.
In this case, plaintiff presented a timely claim to the State on September 4, 2001. In its denial letter, dated October 26, 2001, the State warned plaintiff that he had six months, until April 26, 2002, to file a court action. Instead of filing a timely court action, plaintiff filed a petition for relief from late filing of his complaint on August 6, 2002. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statute of limitations requirement of section 945.6, and has failed to cite any authority to excuse his noncompliance.
Furthermore, although plaintiff named the County as a defendant in its petition to the court, plaintiff only submitted a claim to the State. Absent from the record is any evidence of an attempt to comply with the claims filing requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act with respect to this defendant. Plaintiffs failure to file a claim with the County bars its complaint against that entity.
See Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at pages 713-714 (distinguishing several cases, including Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist., supra, 42 Cal.3d 270).
For these reasons, the trial court properly denied plaintiffs petition.
4. Disposition
We affirm the courts order. Defendants shall recover their costs on appeal.
We concur: McKinster, Acting P.J., and Richli J.