ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al.

24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Petition Petition for Relief from Claim Presentation Requirement and for Leave to File Action Against the County of Sacramento; filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH (Plaintiff) CRS# 457451891702 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 06/26/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion re: PETITION FOR ORDER RELIEVING PETITIONERS FROM THE CLAIM PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 946.6 AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ACTION AGAINST T filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH on 05/11/2026 is Denied.

I.

Background

George and Chrstine Arsenith (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on August 28, 2024 against numerous defendants, many of which are public entities. Following George Arsenith’s passing, Christy Arsenith was named as George’s successor-in-interest and Merriann Cassidy and George Arsenith, Jr. were also added as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the currently operative Fourth Amended Complaint (“FOAC”) on April 10, 2026.

Respondent County of Sacramento (“Respondent”) was named as a defendant in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on June 24, 2025. Plaintiffs had previously submitted a government claim form to Respondent on March 19, 2025 alleging that decedent may have been exposed to asbestos cement pipe on County property. On March 31, Respondent served a Notice of Insufficiency in response to Plaintiffs’ claim. The claim was deemed insufficient in that it did not describe the accident location beyond stating it occurred on “County of Sacramento property.” Plaintiffs’ counsel mistook the Notice of Insufficiency for a rejection notice and pleaded in the FAC that Respondent had rejected the claim.

The County sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs on September 12, 2025, which notified Plaintiffs that they had failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. The parties met and conferred via videoconference on September 15. It was at this point that Plaintiffs discovered that the Notice of Insufficiency was not a rejection notice. Counsel for Respondent indicated that the due date for an amended government claim was September 30 and that they would accept service. (Adams Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. 5.) Plaintiffs submitted an amended claim form on September 29. (Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. 6.) The County rejected the amended claim on November 11, 2025 on the grounds that it was not timely submitted. (Id. at ¶ 11, Exh. 7.)

Plaintiffs now move for relief from the County’s denial pursuant to Government Code section 946.6. 24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Petition Petition for Relief from Claim Presentation Requirement and for Leave to File Action Against the County of Sacramento; filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH (Plaintiff) CRS# 457451891702 in Department 18 II.

Legal Standard

Before suing a government entity, a person must file a claim within six months of an injury resulting in personal injury or death. (Government Code § 911.2(a).) The government entity may deny the claim if it is not timely presented, in which case the claimant may ask the government entity to accept a late claim. (Government Code § 911.4 (a).) If the government entity denies the application for a late claim, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from the claim presentation requirements. (Government Code § 946.6.)

Government Code section 946.6(c)(1) states that relief from the claim presentation requirement is available when “[t]he 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.” Petitioners for relief under this section must make the same showing as would be required under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 for relieving a party from default judgment. (Flores v. Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 480, 483.)

III.

Discussion

The parties do not dispute that the deadline for Plaintiffs to submit their claim forms was July 11, 2025, six months after Mr. Arsenith passed away. Plaintiffs contend that the failure to timely submit their claim to the County was a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect based on counsel’s mistaken belief that the March 31, 2025 Notice of Insufficiency was in fact a denial of the claim.

In the context of mistake or excusable neglect, “[r]elief on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is available only on a showing that the claimant’s failure to timely present a claim was reasonable when tested by the objective ‘reasonably prudent person’ standard.” (Dept. of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293.) “[Petitioner] must show by a preponderance of the evidence that in the use of reasonable diligence, [they] could not discover the act or could not act upon it.” (Id. at 1296.) Failure to timely act in any fashion will generally not be excusable absent extenuating circumstances. (Id. at 1293.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel was initially diligent in that they were timely in submitting their initial claim to the County on March 19, 2025. Thus, the critical issue for the court’s consideration is whether Plaintiffs’ counsel’s asserted mistaken belief that the claim had been denied rather than deemed insufficient and requiring amendment is the type of mistake or excusable neglect affording relief.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Petition Petition for Relief from Claim Presentation Requirement and for Leave to File Action Against the County of Sacramento; filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH (Plaintiff) CRS# 457451891702 in Department 18

The court reviewed the Notice of Insufficiency and finds that counsel’s mistake does not merit the requested relief. The Notice of Insufficiency clearly states in the introductory paragraph that the claim failed to substantially comply with Government Code sections 910 and 910.2 and, critically, “will not be accepted for filing and therefore, will not be considered on the merits by the County.” (Barfield Decl., Exh. A.) The Notice then identifies the reasons for insufficiency. Page 2 of the Notice warns that claimants “may amend your claim and present it to the County of Sacramento at any time before the expiration of six (6) months if your claim is for bodily injury, death, or damage to personal property from the date of accrual of your cause of action or before final action on your claim is taken by the County, whichever is later.” (Id. at p. 2.)

The Notice thus sufficiently put Plaintiffs on notice that their claims had not been accepted for review and consideration, and further instructed them to amend their claims within six months of accrual per statute. Thus, Plaintiffs’ failure to do so was due to an apparent failure to read the County’s notice, and not due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The court does not find that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to carefully review the notice meets the “reasonably prudent person” standard.

Plaintiffs also argue that the County’s later representation that the amended claim would be accepted if submitted by September 30, 2025 warrants granting relief. The court disagrees because the statute of limitations had already run by this point. Plaintiffs’ contention in reply that they “reasonably relied” on counsel’s representation, itself mistaken, does not toll the sixmonth deadline or otherwise excuse Plaintiffs’ mistake given that the deadline had already longsince passed. Thus, the meet and confer between the parties in September 2025 and Plaintiffs’ subsequent efforts to diligently comply are of no legal effect or consequence as to this motion.

Because the court does not find that Plaintiffs’ failure to timely submit the claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, the court need not determine whether the County would be prejudiced.

IV. Orders Plaintiffs’ Petition for Order Relieving Petitioners from Claim Presentation Requirements as to specially-appearing nonparty County of Sacramento is DENIED.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Petition Petition for Relief from Claim Presentation Requirement and for Leave to File Action Against the County of Sacramento; filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH (Plaintiff) CRS# 457451891702 in Department 18 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.