Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cnty.
Citation | 45 Cal.App.5th 1079,259 Cal.Rptr.3d 453 |
Decision Date | 03 March 2020 |
Docket Number | C088857 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | LINCOLN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Respondent; Shynelle Jones, Real Party in Interest. |
Johnson Schachter & Lewis and Jason M. Sherman, for Petitioners.
Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation, Brendan J. Begley, Sacramento, Joshua H. Escovedo, and Zachary S. Thompson, for California Association of Joint Powers Authorities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Law Offices of Kenneth N. Meleyco, Kenneth N. Meleyco, and Floyd W. Cranmore, for Real Party in Interest.
This proceeding arises out of a minor’s collapse during football try-outs at Lincoln High School in Stockton on August 1, 2017. Respondent Shynelle Jones presented a timely claim on behalf of her son, Jayden, to the Lincoln Unified School District under the Government Claims Act ( Gov. Code, § 810 et seq. ).1 About four months later, Jones submitted an application to the school district for leave to present a late claim on her own behalf based on her allegedly newfound realization of the severity of her son’s injuries, their impact on her own life, and her right to file her own claim. She declared that up until that point she had been able to attend to her own interests. After the application was denied, Jones filed a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement in the superior court based on the same facts. At the hearing on her petition, her counsel, Kenneth Meleyco, presented a new explanation for the delay in submitting Jones’s claim. After the hearing, he filed a declaration explaining that, the day after Jones presented a claim on her son’s behalf, she retained Meleyco on her own behalf, and an error in the handling of Meleyco’s dictated memo within his office prevented the earlier preparation of Jones’s claim. The superior court granted Jones’s petition, despite noting "legitimate concerns regarding [her] credibility" because it "determined based on the directives provided in case law, to provide relief from technical rules, that [Jones] has met her burden of proof to demonstrate that her neglect was excusable." This original proceeding followed.
We conclude this ruling was an abuse of the court’s discretion. The reason a petitioner submits to justify relief from the claim presentation requirement must be the same as the reason advanced in the underlying application to the public entity. Additionally, the general policy favoring trial on the merits cannot justify the approval of a petition that is not credible and that does not demonstrate a right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence. We shall issue a writ of mandate compelling the superior court to vacate its order and enter a new order denying Jones relief from the claim presentation requirement.
Jones, as guardian ad litem on behalf of her son, filed a complaint for gross negligence and negligent misrepresentation against petitioners the Lincoln Unified School District, its superintendent, the principal of Lincoln High School, and the football coach of Lincoln High School (collectively, the District). The complaint alleges that, on August 1, 2017, Jayden collapsed due to extreme exhaustion and dehydration after being denied water at football try-outs and suffered permanent injuries as a result. The complaint alleges compliance with the Government Claims Act. On November 8, 2017, Jones had sent a claim to the school district on her son’s behalf. This proceeding concerns Jones’s attempt to present a claim on her own behalf.
On March 2, 2018, Jones applied to the school district on her own behalf "for leave to present a late claim founded on a cause of action for personal injury, which accrued on or about August 1, 2017, for which a claim was not presented within the six-month period provided by [ ] section 911.2[, subdivision] (a)." The application stated: The application attached what it termed a "proposed claim" that stated Jones "did not file a claim within the prescribed time ... because she did not realize the degree of injuries that her son ... has and will suffer." Jones submitted a declaration explaining: Jones added, "I was unaware of my right to even file a claim until recently because I was so involved in [Jayden]’s care." The memorandum of points and authorities submitted in support of the application made no reference to the factual basis for relief, but briefed the legal concept of "[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect." (§ 911.6, subd. (b)(l).)
Jones’s application was deemed denied on the 45th day when the school district did not act on it. (§ 911.6, subd. (c).)
In July 2018, Jones filed a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement in superior court based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The petition explained The application Jones submitted to the school district, including her declaration in support thereof, was attached to the petition.
The District filed an opposition arguing Jones had not established excusable neglect. The District submitted evidence of a social media post by Jones shortly after the incident to support its assertion that Jones had been aware of the extent of her son’s injuries and its effect on her personal finances. In the post, dated August 3, 2017, Jones states:
The court issued a tentative ruling denying Jones’s petition on the grounds she had failed to demonstrate that her neglect was excusable. The court found Jones was aware that the injuries suffered by her son were causing her financial problems of some significance shortly after they occurred and that she had been thinking of these problems. Further, the court explained Jones’s declaration The court found The court also found "[t]here [was] no showing that ... counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing [Jones’s] claim."
After oral argument, the court ordered Jones to file a declaration and additional briefing. Meleyco submitted a declaration stating he was retained by Jones on August 21, 2017, to file a lawsuit against the District on behalf of her son. He describes his "habitual custom and practice, to dictate an extensive memo to the file after speaking with a client which is then transcribed by the legal secretary." He continued:
In this case, however, Meleyco wanted to meet Jayden before submitting his claim:
Meleyco was not able to meet with Jayden until October 12, 2017: The claim was signed by Meleyco on November 8, 2017.
Meleyco declared...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cavey v. Tualla
...to the specific policies underlying the claim presentation requirements. (See generally, Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1079, 1094–1095, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 453.) In other words, the interpretation adopted must not undermine the three purposes of the claim pres......
-
Dep't of Corr. v. State Pers. Bd.
...by said appointing power that the rejection of the employee would be for the good of the service.'" (Lincoln Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1079, 1092-1093 , quoting Bryant v. State Personnel Board (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 423, 426 The probationer may request in wr......
-
L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth. v. S. Cal. Gas Co.
... ... B288686 California Court of Appeals, Second District August 13, 2021 ... from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County ... Super. Ct ... statute. ( Lincoln Unified School Dist. v. Superior ... Court ... ...
-
L. A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth. v. S. Cal. Gas Co.
... ... B288686 California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division ... from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County ... No ... statute. ( Lincoln Unified School Dist. v. Superior ... Court ... ...
-
Chapter 2 - §13. Judicial notice
...words and phrases and of all legal expressions. Evid. C. §451(e); see, e.g., Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct. (3d Dist.2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1079, 1092 (judicial notice taken of definitions in place when statutes were enacted). (4) Universally known facts. Judicial notice must be t......
-
Table of Cases null
...467 P.2d 557, 44 A.L.R.3d 1 (1970)—Ch. 4-C, §10.1; §10.4.2; §10.6.2; §11.3; §11.6.3 Lincoln Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 5th 1079, 259 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 375 Ed. Law Rep. 418 (3d Dist. 2020)—Ch. 2, §13.1.1(3) Linda Vista Village San Diego Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Te......