Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cnty.

Citation45 Cal.App.5th 1079,259 Cal.Rptr.3d 453
Decision Date03 March 2020
Docket NumberC088857
CourtCalifornia 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.

RENNER, J.

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.

I. BACKGROUND

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: "It now appears that [Jayden] will have life-long problems. His mother ..., because of the affect [sic ] that she now realizes this will have on her life, which she did not understand originally, now requests permission to file a late claim for her injuries as a result of the incident on August 1, 2017. The other circumstances concerning the reasons for the late claim are contained in her declaration." 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: "Initially I did not file a claim because I believed that [Jayden] would recover from his injuries. I was so upset and concerned about him I never gave any thought of myself until this time. My life was a whirlpool of [h]ospitals, [d]octors, issues concerning his health, and the need for me to work to support us. I moved in with my mother because of all this. As of now he has not [sic ] and has developed physical and mental issues. I believe that he may be permanently injured, but, of course, I am hoping that he recovers. My time is now spent taking him from one [d]octor’s office to another and to physical therapy. I am Jayden’s sole caretaker .... Now, when I think back at this time, [ ]from his injury until now I realized I was not functioning properly in looking out for me as opposed to [Jayden]." 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 "[t]he reason for the late claim was because [Jones] was unaware of the nature and extent of injuries suffered by her son as a result of the dehydration until the passage of time when the full extent of the injuries manifested themselves. These reasons are set forth in the attached Claim and the declaration of [Jones]." 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: "This unexpected tragedy has put a strain on my family emotionally and financially. I have started a GoFundMe account to help alleviate some of the financial burden of the medical bills resulting from this one[-]week hospital stay. I have been unable to work and support my family as I normally do."

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 "is undermined by her actions. She hired an attorney to file a Claim on behalf of her son, started a GoFundMe account, posted on Facebook about her inability to work and support her family, and gave several television interviews regarding her son." The court found "[t]he Petition fail[ed] to reveal any act of diligence of [Jones] or her attorney to ascertain the full nature and extent of her injuries. There [was] no mention of the actions taken by [Jones] to ascertain her injuries." 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 cases involving the Government [C]laim[s] [A]ct, the memo is utilize[d] to provide a factual background for the claim. Normally, the assigned secretary or perhaps other staff person, will draft the claim immediately, return the file to my desk and we send it out immediately. I have been in private practice for many years representing personal injury [plaintiffs] and I cannot think of one instance where I did not dictate a memo following someone signing a fee agreement."

In this case, however, Meleyco wanted to meet Jayden before submitting his claim: "Accordingly, my staff electronically calendared what I understood to be the last day to file [Jayden]’s claim for January 29, 2018, based on his injury on August 1, 2017. [¶] We did not calendar any claim due date for [ ]Jones, because there was no need—I had not evaluated, at that time, that she had any appreciable injuries of her own or claim for damages thereon. Nor had she retained me to represent her."

Meleyco was not able to meet with Jayden until October 12, 2017: "Pursuant to my practice, I dictated a further memo regarding that interview with him for [the] file. This memo was transcribed and [the] file returned to me with a draft claim." The claim was signed by Meleyco on November 8, 2017.

Meleyco declared...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Cavey v. Tualla
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 24, 2021
    ...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.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 2021
    ...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.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2021
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2021
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 2 - §13. Judicial notice
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...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
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT