Filed 3/20/20 Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

TATYANA E. DREVALEVA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM,

Defendant and Respondent.

A157851

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. RG19002840)

Tatyana Drevaleva appeals from a judgment denying her verified petition under Government Code section 946.6 for relief from the government claim-filing requirements in section 945.4. She also contends that the trial court erred in denying her request for sanctions against Alameda Health System (AHS) for purportedly forcing her to bring an unnecessary petition, and she challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND
II.
On January 16, 2019, plaintiff filed a verified petition under section 946.6 for relief from the claim filing requirements of section 945.4 of the Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.). The petition stemmed from AHS’s denial of a claim that plaintiff had filed on August 20, 2018.

AHS hired plaintiff as a monitor technician in 2013. On September 5, 2013, plaintiff sent a letter to her manager questioning her employee status, unpaid shift differentials, unpaid overtime, the failure of AHS to give work breaks, and the denial of her request for union affiliation. AHS terminated plaintiff on September 7, 2013, and, shortly thereafter, she filed unlawful retaliation and wage claims against AHS with the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DIR).

In December 2016, the DIR determined that AHS terminated plaintiff for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, and plaintiff failed to show pretext. Plaintiff immediately filed a lawsuit against AHS and the DIR in federal court alleging what appeared to be claims for Labor Code violations, discrimination, retaliation, libel, negligence, and fraud. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court against the DIR in November 2017.

Plaintiff presented a government claim to AHS in August 2018. In response to questions on the claim form asking for a description of the cause of her loss and damages, plaintiff stated that AHS employees had informed a DIR investigator in December 2013 that plaintiff had been fired for medical negligence, but there was no explanation or evidence of medical negligence. She stated that AHS informed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that she was fired for poor performance. She further stated that, as result of her termination in 2013, she suffered losses including loss of health and dental insurance, the ability to purchase a home and car, and the ability to become a physician assistant. She indicated that the total amount of her claim was approximately $540,980. Additionally, plaintiff requested that AHS provide answers to the following questions: “1) Describe in detail the nature of the ‘discrepancies between acceptable employment standards and those [I] exhibited during [my] employment with [AHS].’ Provide documentary evidence of the alleged discrepancies. [¶] 2) Describe in detail and provide documentary evidence regarding the allegation of ‘failure to timely read chart and notify the medical provider.’ [¶] 3) Describe in detail and provide documentary evidence of the alleged ‘poor [professional] performance.’ ”

AHS maintains that it interpreted plaintiff’s claim to be one for wrongful termination. On September 4, 2018, acting through its agent, AHS rejected the claim as untimely. On October 24, 2018, AHS denied plaintiff’s request to present a late claim. AHS’s denial letter also stated, “If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (Claim presentation requirement). Please see Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your Application for Leave to Present Late Claim was denied. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.”

Plaintiff filed a verified petition asking that the court issue orders relieving her from section 945.4 and compelling AHS to give her explanations and evidence regarding the DIR investigator’s December 2013 conversation with AHS employees regarding plaintiff’s alleged negligence.

Shortly after filing her verified petition, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Punish [AHS]” for forcing her to file “a [f]rivolous and [u]nnecessary” petition. She conceded therein that her August 20, 2018 claim was not a claim for money or damages, and she contended that AHS required her to file a frivolous petition. She sought punitive damages; monetary penalties; an order requiring AHS to pay for the litigation, her discovery (including the cost of hiring an attorney to conduct depositions), and a jury trial; an order requiring AHS to present her with documents regarding its public entity status; and a writ of mandate compelling AHS to answer the question of whether AHS employees told the DIR investigator that she had been fired for committing medical negligence. After considering the parties’ briefing and hearing argument, the court denied plaintiff’s “Motion to Punish” on the ground that plaintiff did not cite to any authority under which the court could order the relief sought.

The court then issued a briefing schedule for a trial/merits hearing on the verified petition. In her brief in support of the petition, plaintiff claimed for the first time that section 800 authorized the court to provide the relief she sought. After considering the petition and the parties’ written and oral submissions, the court denied the petition on May 17, 2019. AHS submitted a proposed judgment on May 22, 2019, and the court entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice on May 23, 2019. In the judgment, the court found that the petition was frivolous and that plaintiff had failed to present any authority under which the court could order the relief sought.

Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the court’s judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663. The court denied the motion, and plaintiff timely appealed.

III. DISCUSSION
IV.
The Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity. For example, a plaintiff must first file a timely claim for “money or damages” with the public entity and failure to do so bars the plaintiff from bringing suit against that entity. (§§ 945.4, 911.2 .) “ ‘ “[T]he claims presentation requirement applies to all forms of monetary demands, regardless of the theory of the action . . . .” [Citation.] “The policy underlying the claims presentation requirements is to afford prompt notice to public entities. This permits early investigation and evaluation of the claim and informed fiscal planning in light of prospective liabilities.” ’ ” (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1219.) However, if the injured party fails to file a timely claim, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such claim. (§ 911.4, subd. (a).) If the public entity denies that application, section 946.6 authorizes the injured party to petition the court for relief from the claim requirements. (J.J., at p. 1220.) We review the trial court’s order under section 946.6 for abuse of discretion. (Id. at pp. 1220–1221.) Under this standard, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious. (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711–712.)

Plaintiff has conceded over and over again, both on appeal and below, that the claim she presented to AHS was “not for money or damages,” and, accordingly, her petition was unnecessary and frivolous. Given that her claim was not for money or damages, the court could not grant relief under section 946.6. In addition, plaintiff provides no authority pursuant to which the court could, in a proceeding under section 946.6, compel AHS to provide an explanation and evidence regarding the DIR investigator’s conversation with AHS employees. The trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition was not an abuse of discretion, and its denial of her motion to vacate the judgment was proper for the same reasons. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 663, subd. (1) [requiring an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision to vacate a decision of the court].)

Plaintiff additionally urges error in the trial court’s denial of her “motion to punish,” and she contends that AHS should be sanctioned for misleading her into filing an unnecessary petition. We generally review a trial court’s grant or denial of monetary sanctions or prevailing party attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. (See, e.g., Zuehlsdorf v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 249, 257–258 (Zuehlsdorf) [award of prevailing party attorney’s fees under section 800]; Dolan v. Buena Engineers, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1504 [where the trial court is vested with discretionary powers, such as the power to sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, the appellate test is abuse of discretion].)

The trial court’s order was correct. Plaintiff did not cite any authority allowing the relief she sought in her motion. In her brief in support of her petition below, plaintiff argued that section 800 authorized her requests, and she makes the same argument on appeal. Not so. Section 800 permits a litigant who successfully challenges the award, finding, or determination of an administrative agency to recover attorney’s fees if the litigant demonstrates that the agency acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (Zuehlsdorf, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 255.) The statute sets out four conditions for the recovery of attorney’s fees: 1) a civil action to review an award, finding or determination of an administrative proceeding; 2) the complainant prevailed against a public entity or official; 3) arbitrary or capricious action or conduct by a public entity or official; and 4) the complainant is personally obligated to pay the fees. (Ibid.) Because plaintiff was not the prevailing party on her petition, section 800 is inapplicable.

Plaintiff poses a number of additional questions to this court in her briefing, including whether her government claim was timely because she allegedly did not know of the DIR investigator’s conversation with AHS employees until March 2018; whether AHS is estopped from claiming untimeliness; whether error occurred in the manner in which AHS processed her claim; and whether she has a right to a jury trial on what she contends are factual statute of limitations issues underlying her claim. As the claim procedures of the Government Claims Act do not apply to plaintiff’s claim, we need not address these questions.

We also reject plaintiff’s argument that the judgment should be reversed because of the purported failure of AHS and the trial court to adhere to California Rules of Court , rules 3.1590(f) and 3.1590(g) regarding a statement of decision and proposed judgment. A statement of decision may be requested in any “trial of a question of fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 632.) When a trial is completed within one day, a request for statement of decision must be made before the matter is submitted for decision. (Ibid; rule 3.1590(n).) The hearing on the petition took place in less than a day, but the court minutes do not reflect that plaintiff requested a statement of decision. Rules 3.1590(f) and 3.1590(g) thus did not apply. Further, in denying this petition, the court deemed the petition frivolous, noting that plaintiff failed to provide authority under which the court could order the relief sought. The court’s decision was thus one of law for which a statement of decision is unnecessary even if requested by one of the parties. (Kroupa v. Sunrise Ford (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 835, 842.)

V. DISPOSITION
VI.
The judgment is affirmed.

 

_________________________

BROWN, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

STREETER, ACTING P. J.

_________________________

TUCHER, J.

Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System (A157851)