Case Number: BC672809 Hearing Date: March 28, 2018 Dept: 32

rosas livier alvara,

Plaintiffs,

v.

los angeles unified school district,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC672809

Hearing Date: March 28, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

petitioner’s notice of petition and petition for leave to present an untimely claim pursuant to gov’t code §946.6

DISCUSSION

“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4.)

“(a) If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4. . . . (c) The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4. (Cal. Gov. Code § 946.6.)

“[B]ecause the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. . . . [V]ery slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.” (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.)

Plaintiff Rosa Livier Alvara (“Plaintiff”) brings this petition to file a late claim against the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”). As explained in the petition, Plaintiff believed her claims were exempt from filing requirements since they were California Fair Employment and House Act (“FEHA”) claims and she believed they were exempt from the Tort Claims requirements. (Petition 5:8-9.) Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to establish that failure to timely present the claim was made through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. There is no opposition to this motion to the extent the Petition is sought solely due to Plaintiff’s FEHA statutory causes of action. (Opposition 2:9-11.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled pursue her causes of action concerning her FEHA claims. However, plaintiff’s request to add non statutory claims is denied. Ignorance of the law concerning the claim filing requirements does not constitute adequate cause for delay in filing an application for leave to amend. (See, Drummond v. County of Fresno (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1406.)