Keith S. Garrett v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NO: 25CMCV01398 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION FOR ORDER RELIEVING PETITIONER FROM THE CLAIM PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT OF GOVERNMENT CODE Sec. 945.4 (IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE) DATE: August 18, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M. DEPT.: E | Moving Party: Petitioner

Keith S. Garrett Responding Party: Respondent City of Compton Notice: Ok SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT Tentative Ruling: Petitioner's Order Relieving Petitioner from the Claim Presentation Requirement of Government Code Sec.945.4 is GRANTED. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT

I. BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury and premises liability matter. Plaintiff Keith S. Garrett ("Plaintiff" or "Petitioner") alleges that, as he was exiting his vehicle on or about November 21, 2024, his toes caught on a raised and uneven portion of a sidewalk at or near 419 N. Poinsettia Ave in Compton, CA (the "Premises") which was owned or controlled by Defendants City of Los Angeles ("LA City"), County of Los Angeles ("LA County") and the State of California (the "State"), causing him to trip and fall face first onto the ground and resulting in serious injury.

On August 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint against LA City, LA County, the State and DOES 1 to 10 (collectively, the "Defendants"), alleging causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability; (2) General Negligence; and (3) Strict Liability (Civil Code Secs. 1929, 1941).

The State was dismissed on November 4, 2025 (see Request for Dismissal, 11/4/25), LA City was dismissed on December 12, 2025 (see Stipulation and Tolling Agreement re: Dismissal of Defendant City of Los Angeles, 12/12/25), and LA County was dismissed on February 13, 2026 (see Request for Dismissal, 2/13/26).

On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint substituting the City of Compton ("Compton") as Doe 1. (Amendment to Complaint, 2/10/26.)

On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from the Claim-Presentation Requirement of Government Code Sec.945.4.

On August 5, 2026, Compton filed its Opposition.

On August 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Reply.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

"A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action." (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2(a).)

"When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to submit that claim." (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.4(a).)

"The application shall be presented to the public entity . . . within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 911.4(b).)

"Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . 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 . . . ." (Gov. Code Sec. 945.4.)

"If the application is denied, the claimant may petition the trial court for relief from the requirement of presentation of a timely filed claim as a precondition to bringing suit." (Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 903, 909 (Renteria).)

If a claimant fails to make a claim within six months pursuant to Government Code Sec. 911.2, the claimant may make a written application to the board of the public entity for permission to present a late claim within a reasonable time but not to exceed one year from the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.4(a), (b).)

If, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Sec. 911.6, the board denies the application to present a late claim, the claimant may petition the Court for relief from the requirements of Government Code Sec. 945.4. (Gov. Code Sec. 946.6(a).)

A petition for relief to file a late claim must indicate: (1) that the application was made to the board under Gov. Code Sec. 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied; (2) the reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2 [1]; and (3) the information required by Section 910. (Gov. Code, Sec. 946.6(b)(1)-(3).)

Further, "[t]he petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6." (Gov. Code, Sec. 946.6(b).)

The petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the late-claim application was made within a reasonable time and that one of the statutory requirements under Section 946.6(c) was met. (Drummond v. County of Fresno (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1410.)

Pursuant to Section 946.4(e), the trial court must make its determination upon the petition, "relying upon any affidavits in support of, or in opposition to, the petition and any additional evidence received at hearing on the petition." (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 431.)

B.

Discussion

Garrett petitions the Court for an order relieving him from the claim-presentation requirement of Government Code Sec. 945.4 as to Respondent City of Compton, pursuant to Government Code Sec. 946.6.

1. Garrett's Claim and Claim Presentations

Garrett's cause of action accrued on November 21, 2024 when he sustained personal injuries on a sidewalk in Compton, California. (See generally, Complaint; see also Declaration of John R. Habashy ("Habashy Decl."), P. 2.)

Garrett timely presented his claims to the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and City of Los Angeles within the six-month period mandated by Government Code Sec. 911.2. (Id., P. 3.)

Garrett contends his claims to the State and the City and County of Los Angeles were presented based on counsel's good-faith understanding that the incident location was within the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. (Id., P. 4.)

However, counsel for City of Los Angeles later advised that the incident location was within the jurisdiction of the City of Compton. (Id., P. 5.)

After learning the incident location was within the City of Compton, Garrett's counsel promptly presented a claim along with an application for leave to present a late claim to the City of Compton on November 12, 2025. (Id., P. 6, Exh. A.)

Compton received Garrett's submission, investigated the matter, and issued a Notice of Rejection of Claim on December 31, 2025. (Id., P.P. 7-8, Exh. B.)

On February 10, 2026, Garrett filed an amendment to the Complaint in the present action naming the City of Compton as Doe 1. (Id., P. 9, Exh. C.)

2. Section 945.6 Versus Sections 911.4, 911.6 and 946.6

Garrett primarily argues that Compton's December 31, 2025 rejection treated his November 12, 2025 submission as a claim rejected by operation of law under Section 912.4 and triggered the six-month limitations period of Section 945.6, and thus, no petition under section 946.6 is necessary.

Compton does not argue in opposition to Garrett's primary position, instead focusing its arguments on whether Garrett has made the requisite showing for relief pursuant to Section 946.6.

Section 912.4 provides that "[i]f the board fails or refuses to act on a claim within the time prescribed by this section, the claims shall be deemed to have been rejected by the board on the last day of the period within which the board was required to act upon the claim." (Gov't Code Sec. 912.4(c).)

And Section 945.6 requires that any suit against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented must be commenced not later than six months after the date the petitioner received notice of rejection. (Gov't Code Sec. 945.6(a)(1).)

It would appear that Garrett's argument as to the applicability of the procedures set forth in Sections 912.4 and 945.6 is made with reference to the language in Compton's December 31, 2025 Notice of Rejection of Claim. (See Habashy Decl., Exh. B, p. 2.)

But Garrett makes no factual or legal argument connecting the language in Compton's December 31, 2025 Notice of Rejection to his contention that Compton should be held to have treated his application, clearly titled "Application for Leave to File a Late Claim (Government Code Sec. 911.4)" (see Habashy Decl., Exh. A, p. 3), as a claim made pursuant to Section 911.2.

The totality of Garrett's argument consists of the statement that "Petitioner's primary position is that the City of Compton's December 31, 2025 written notice treated the November 12, 2025 submission as a 'claim' 'rejected by operation of law' under Government Code section 912.4 and triggered the six-month limitations period of Government Code section 945.6, which is a separate statutory framework from the late-claim application/petition procedure of sections 911.4, 911.6, and 946.6."

No factual or legal argument is made, for example, as to how Compton's treatment of the claim estops it from treating it as a late-filed claim or arguing that it is a late-filed claim or as to how Compton's treatment of the claim changes the factual circumstances that it was filed with Compton over six months after the date of injury.

In the absence of legal and factual argument substantiating Garrett's argument, the Court treats Plaintiff's argument as to the applicability of the procedures set forth in Sections 912.4 and 945.6 as waived. (See Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1009 ("[F]ailure to offer reasoned analysis of [an] issue constitutes a waiver"); see also In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ("The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contentions as waived").)

3. Section 946.6

Garrett alternatively argues that if the Court construes Compton's December 31, 2025 notice as a denial under Section 911.6, then he filed this petition within the six-month period prescribed by Section 946.6(b) and any failure to present the claim earlier was the result of mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect.

Compton argues Garrett has failed to set forth sufficient facts supporting mistake or excusable neglect because Petitioner's counsel's declaration does not state when or how he was advised that the incident was in Compton's jurisdiction.

Compton also argues that Petitioner delayed in presenting his late-claim application to Compton, even though Garrett filed within the Section 911.4(b)'s one-year time limit, which delay will result in prejudice to Compton because it affects Compton's ability to investigate the condition of the sidewalk as it existed on the date of the incident.

Finally, Compton argues that Garrett must have sought and obtained an order relieving him of the claim-presentation requirement prior to naming Compton as a party, a procedural error that Garrett now seeks to have the court ratify.

i. Garrett's Application to File a Late Claim

Section 911.2(a) provides, "[a] claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person ... shall be presented ... not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action." (Gov't Code Sec. 911.2(a).)

Garrett's cause of action accrued on November 21, 2024, therefore his deadline to file a claim against the City of Compton was May 21, 2025.

Garrett did not file a claim against the City of Compton by May 21, 2025, thus he failed to present his claim to the City of Compton not later than six months after the accrual of his cause of action as was required.

Because Garret's claim was not presented within the time period allotted by Section 911.2, Section 911.4 applied, which required Garrett to present his application for leave to present his claim to Compton "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and [to] state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim." (Gov't Code Sec. 911.4(a), (b).)

After filing his claims with the City of Los Angeles sometime before May 21, 2025 and being informed on October 30, 2025 that he should instead have instead filed his claim with the City of Compton (see Habashy Supp. Decl., p. 2:23-25, Exh. A) [2], Garrett filed his application for leave to file a late claim with the City of Compton on November 12, 2025.

Garrett's November 12, 2025 application was presented within a year after the accrual of his cause of action on November 21, 2024 and thus complied with Section 911.4.

ii. Compton's Denial of Garrett's Application to File a Late Claim and Petition to the Court for Relief

Section 911.6(a) provides that "[t]he board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board." (Gov't Code Sec.911.6(a).)

On December 31, 2025, the City of Compton issued a written "Notice of Rejection of Claim". (Habashy Decl., P.P. 7-8, Exh. B.)

Pursuant to Section 946.6(a), "[i]f 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. ... [P.] (b) ... The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6." (Id., Sec. 946.6(a).)

Garrett had until June 30, 2026 to file his petition to the court for an order relieving him from Section 945.4; Garrett's April 24, 2026 petition was within that deadline.

iii. Garrett's Mistake, Inadvertence or Excusable Neglect

Finally, Section 946.6(c) provides, in pertinent part, "[t]he 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: [P.] (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." (Gov't Code Sec.946.6(c).)

The remedial policies underlying Government Code Sec. 946.6 require that whenever possible cases be heard on their merits and any doubts which exist be resolved in favor of the potential claimant. (Christopher P. v. Mojave Unified School Dist. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 165)

As is stated above, though Garrett's late-claim application was timely made, pursuant to Section 946.6(c) Garrett must still show that his failure to file a timely claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Gov. Code Sec. 946.6(c)(1).)

The showing required of a petitioner seeking relief because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect¿is the same as required by Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(b). (Viles v. State (1967) 66 Cal.2d 24, 29.)

"[I]t is uniformly held that for relief on any or all of the stated grounds it must be shown that one's misconception was reasonable, or that it might have been the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances." (Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Dist. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 529, 539 n.1.)

"The party seeking relief based on a claim of mistake must establish he was diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim." (Department of Water & Power v. Sup.Ct. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293.)

"[N]eglect is not excusable where a party does not take¿ any ¿action within six months after the accrual of a cause of action; at the very least, the party must attempt to engage the services of an attorney to investigate the facts to identify potential defendants in any cause of action arising out of a damaging¿incident." (DeVore v. Dept. of California Highway Patrol (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 454, 460-461.)

Here, the Court finds both the Garrett's application was made within a reasonable time and that Garrett's failure to file a timely claim was the result of mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect.

Garrett's application was made on November 12, 2025, days after being informed on October 30, 2025 that he had filed suit against the incorrect entity.

The Court finds nothing unreasonable in filing an application to file a late claim days after realizing an error but before the statutory cut-off.

As to mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect, Garrett filed his (timely) claim with the City of Los Angeles believing the incident to have occurred in the City of Los Angeles instead of the City of Compton. (Habashy Decl., P.P. 3-5.)

The Court finds the City of Los Angeles filing, along with Habashy's declarations as to the subsequent rejection and receipt of information as to the correct entity to which a claim should be submitted, sufficiently evidences Garrett's mistake and/or inadvertence. (See, e.g., Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270.)

iv. Prejudice to Compton

The Court must finally evaluate Garrett's Petition as to any prejudice to Compton.

If Compton establishes that it would be prejudiced in its defense of the claim were Garrett to be relieved from the requirements of Section 945.4, the Court might still deny Garrett's Petition. (Gov't Code Sec.946.6(c).)

Compton argues that it would be prejudiced because it "did not receive any notice of Petitioner's claim until November 12, 2025, nearly a full year after the November 21, 2024 incident. The resulting delay in notice necessarily affects the City's ability to investigate the condition of the sidewalk as it existed on the date of the incident." (Opp., p. 8:7-9.)

The Court does not find Compton's argument persuasive.

All that is offered is the asserted that Compton's ability to investigate would be affected due to the date it received notice but that delayed notice, made within the year time limit mandated by the Government Code, is not necessarily and even fundamentally prejudicial.

First, the delay is better termed at approximately six months rather than a year.

Garrett had six months from the date of the incident to timely file a notice of claim pursuant to Section 911.2.

The Court presumes that any filing within that statutorily mandated initial six-month time period is not prejudicial.

Accordingly, what remains is the approximate additional six months and Compton has provided no evidence to support its claim that the additional six month delay resulted in any actual prejudice.

v. Compton's Procedural Argument

As noted above, Compton contends that Plaintiff erred in filing suit prior to seeking relief pursuant to Section 946.6.

Compton argues that Section 946.6(f)'s requirement that "suit on a cause of action to which the claim relates shall be filed with the Court within 30 days" after the Court grants relief means that Plaintiff's request is statutorily improper. (See Gov't Code Sec. 946.6(f); Opp., p. 7:12-8:2.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Section 946.6(f) is a post-order filing direction, not a precondition for relief and cites to legal authority that a suit filed prior to obtaining relief is simply a plea in abatement rather than dispositive.

The Court finds Plaintiff's argument persuasive.

There exist many cases constituting binding appellate authority on this Court "where the plaintiffs submitted a timely claim but prematurely filed a complaint [and] the courts refused to dismiss the action because the plaintiffs had substantially complied with the claim presentation requirement. According to these courts, the plaintiffs, by filing the claim and prematurely filing the complaint, had satisfied the purpose behind the requirement--to give the entity the opportunity to investigate and settle the claim before suit was brought." (See State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1244 (listing cases where suit was prematurely filed but deemed complaint).)

The Court does not find Plaintiff's filing so procedurally incorrect as to warrant denial of the instant motion.

III. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, the Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from the Claim-Presentation Requirement of Government Code 945.4 is GRANTED.

On April 29, 2026, the Court heard and sustained Compton's Demurrer but reserved setting a date for filing an amened complaint pending the outcome of the instant motion.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is now ordered to be filed and served no later than August 31, 2026.

A Case Management Conference is set for October 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. E.

[1] Unspecified Section reference are made to the Government Code.

[2] Habashy's supplemental declaration arguably submits "new" evidence that should have been submitted with Garrett's moving papers.

Upon review, the Court determines that Habashy's supplemental declaration, rather than providing "new" evidence, addresses and provides further specification regarding evidence submitted with Garrett's moving papers and as to which Compton raised issue in its Opposition.

Case Number: 25CMCV01923 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Plaintiff, vs. XCLUSIVE AUTO COLLISION, INC.; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. |)))))))))))) |