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 Placer County Water Agency; filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH (Plaintiff) CRS# 600628897967 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 06/29/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion re: PETITION FOR ORDER RELIEVING PETITIONERS FROM CLAIM PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 946.6 AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ACTION AGAINST PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY 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 Placer County Water Agency (“Respondent” or “PCWA”) was named as a defendant in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on June 24, 2025. On February 2, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs at the offices of Dean Omar Branham Shirley, LLP submitted government claim forms alleging that Respondent PCWA had contributed to decedent’s asbestos exposure and resultant mesothelioma. (Adams Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) However, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent the claim to the County of Placer rather than PCWA. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

The claim was received by the County of Placer on February 18, 2025. (Slentz Decl., Exh. E (8/28/2025 Born Decl. ISO Demurrer), p. 4.) The County sent letters to Plaintiffs in response on February 24, 2025, which asserted that the location of the incident was under the exclusive jurisdiction of PCWA. (Born Decl., Exh. A.) On March 19, 2025, Plaintiffs received a Notice of Rejection from the County of Placer, not Respondent. (Adamas Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 2.) Plaintiffs contend that they mistakenly believed that PCWA was the agency that had rejected the claim, and on the basis of that belief, named PCWA as a defendant in its First Amended Complaint. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. 3.)

Plaintiffs contend that they did not realize the mistake until September 2025. (Id. at ¶ 10.) On December 2, Plaintiffs filed an application to PCWA for leave to present late claim forms. (Id. at ¶ 11, Exh. 4.) Plaintiffs state that they never received a response to the application.

Plaintiffs now move for relief from the claims presentation requirement 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 Placer County Water Agency; filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH (Plaintiff) CRS# 600628897967 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. The parties also agree that in February 2025, Plaintiffs initially attempted to timely submit a claim, but sent the claim to the wrong agency.

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 February 2, 2025. Plaintiffs also appear to have diligently requested leave to file a late claim after their “discovery” that the wrong entity had received the initial claim. Thus, the court considers whether Plaintiffs’ counsel’s mistaken belief that the claim had been submitted to, and rejected by, the proper agency – here, PCWA – is properly characterized

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 Placer County Water Agency; filed by CHRISTY ARSENITH, individually and as successor-in-interest to GEORGE ARSENITH (Plaintiff) CRS# 600628897967 in Department 18 as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect meriting relief under Section 946.6.

Based on the record, the court finds that counsel’s mistake does not merit the requested relief. While Plaintiffs’ moving papers make no mention of the critical communication and, oddly, do not address it in reply, Respondent’s evidence shows that the County of Placer communicated in its February 24, 2025 letters to Plaintiffs that the claim at issue involved premises under the exclusive jurisdiction of PCWA rather than the County. Thus, Plaintiffs’ contention that they did not realize the mistake until September 2025 is contradicted by the record. The fact that the County of Placer mailed notices of rejection of the mis-mailed claim on March 19, 2025 does not negate their receipt of the February 24, 2025 letters placing them on notice of their mistake.

Plaintiffs’ diligent efforts to present a late claim after their September 2025 “discovery” of their mistake are of no legal effect or consequence as to this motion because they had received notice of the mistake in February 2025 and failed to cure the error prior to the expiration of the statute in July 2025.

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 Respondent would be prejudiced if relief were granted.

IV. Orders Plaintiffs’ Petition for Order Relieving Petitioners from Claim Presentation Requirements as to Placer County Water Agency 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.

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.