2018-00226922-CU-PT

Virginia M. vs. Sacramento City Unified School District

Nature of Proceeding: Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government

Filed By: Smith, Katherine

Petitioner Virginia M.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Order Relieving her from Gov. Code §945.4 is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

Petitioner claims that Respondent Sacramento City Unified School District (“District”) was deliberately indifferent to her and retaliated against her after learning she was sexually assaulted (gang raped) by peers off school grounds. On May 24, 2016, officials from the school pulled Petitioner out of class and sent her to a School Resources Officer (“Officer”). Petitioner confirmed the assault and provided details. Petitioner asserts that the Officer “constructively expelled” her from the remainder of her junior year stating that everything needed to blow over during the summer.

Petitioner asserts that between May 2016 and her graduation on July 9, 2017, the District continued its indifferent and retaliatory behavior by, among others, affirmatively misrepresenting the status of her grades and coursework, failing to take remedial steps to end harassing phone calls and text messages, and ignoring her request for an Individual Education Program (“IEP”) and 504 evaluations. Petitioner turned eighteen (18) on February 5, 2017.

Petitioner filed her tort claim with the District on July 28, 2017. In her tort claim, Petitioner listed the date of injury as May 24, 2016 through June 9, 2017. The tort claim asserted against the District continuing violations of Title IX, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection Clause), violations of the Unruh Act, violations of Cal. Ed. Code § 220, et seq., violations of the California Constitution and for Negligence.

Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioner filed an application to file a late tort claim with the District on August 8, 2017. The District denied the application on September 25, 2017. This petition followed.

Claims Presentation Requirements

The Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 810 et seq.) requires that any civil complaint for money damages must first be timely presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity. (Gov. Code §§ 910, 912.4; 912.8, 945.4.) For claims involving injury to a person, claims must be presented to the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code §911.2(a).)

If the claim is not timely presented, the claimant may file a written application with the public entity, in this case the District, seeking leave to present the late claim. (§911.4.) The application must be made within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code §911) If the public entity denies the application, California law allows the claimant to file a petition with the court for relief from the claims presentation requirement. (Gov. Code §946.6.)

Pursuant to Gov. Code §946.6, Petitioner must show that the failure to present the claim was either (i) due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (ii) Petitioner was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim, (iii) Petitioner was physically or mentally incapacitated during those six months and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim, or (iv) Petitioner died before the expiration of those six-months. (Gov. Code § 946.6(c).) The Petitioner has the initial burden to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Barragan v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1386.) Once Petitioner meets that burden, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate prejudice as a result of the petitioner’s delay. (Id.)

When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under

Government Code section 946.6. (Gov’t Code §911.4, Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 480, 488; Munoz v. State of California (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1779.)

Analysis

Petitioner advances, in part, that she is entitled to relief because she was a minor at the time the District’s violation began. To be entitled to relief based on minority, Petitioner must show that she was minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim. (Gov. Code §946.6.) Section 911.2 requires that the claim be presented no later than six months after accrual of the cause of action.

Here, Petitioner turned eighteen (18) on February 5, 2017. Therefore, she was a minor for the period of May 24, 2016 to February 4, 2017 – or a total of 9 months. Petitioner, therefore, satisfies the requirements of Gov. Code §946.6. She also filed her claim within 4 months of turning 18. Thus, Petitioner’s claim is timely. The Court disagrees with the District’s argument that the petition should be denied because, in her application to file a late claim to the District, Petitioner did not claim her minority status as a reason for delay. District proffers no legal authority supporting its position. In any event, given that the claim was timely, Petitioner was not required to file an application for late claim.

The motion for relief is GRANTED and Petitioner may pursuant to Govt. Code §946.6 file suit in the underlying claim.

Having granted the petition for relief based on Petitioner’s minority status, the Court need not rule on Petitioner’s remaining arguments.