Melissa Serrano and Eric Lozano v. City of San Bernardino

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

MELISSA SERRANO AND ERIC LOZANO, Case No.: CIVSB2538092 Plaintiffs, [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR v. ORDER RELIEVING PETITIONERS FROM CLAIM CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, A MUNICIPAL PRESENTATION CORPORATION, REQUIREMENTS, FILED BY PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS Defendant. MELISSA SERRANO AND ERIC LOZANO

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 31, 2025, Plaintiffs Melissa Serrano and Eric Lozano filed a complaint

against Defendant City of San Bernardino, alleging causes of action for: (1) wrongful death;

(2) survival action for pre-death pain and suffering; (3) dangerous condition of public property;

(4) premises liability; and (5) negligence. Plaintiffs allege Teodora Yadira Mendoza was fatally

mauled by dogs on July 31, 2025, around Pacific Street and Perris Hill Park Road, and that the

City failed to address dangerous conditions involving uncontrolled dogs in the area. (Compl.

¶¶ 8, 23(b)-(f).)

Plaintiffs later learned that the incident allegedly occurred on County-owned flood

control property. On May 14, 2026, they presented applications for leave to present late claims to

the County of San Bernardino (County), which the County denied on May 19, 2026. Plaintiffs

thereafter filed the present petition for relief from the claim-presentation requirements under

Government Code section 946.6, based on excusable neglect. The County opposes and Plaintiffs

reply. After issuing a tentative ruling and holding a hearing on the motion, the Court now issues

its final ruling.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A claim relating to death or personal injury generally must be presented to the public

entity within six months after accrual. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) If that period has expired,

the claimant may apply to the public entity for leave to present a late claim. The application must

be made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after accrual. (Gov. Code, § 911.4.)

If the application is denied, the claimant may petition the Superior Court for relief under

Government Code section 946.6. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the late-claim application was presented within a reasonable

time and that the failure to timely present the claim resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

or excusable neglect. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1); Department of Water & Power v.

Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293 (Department of Water & Power).) If that

showing is made, relief must be granted unless the public entity establishes prejudice. (Gov.

Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).)

Excusable neglect is measured by an objective reasonably prudent person standard, and

the petitioner must show reasonable diligence in investigating and pursuing the claim. (N.G. v.

County of San Diego (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 63, 73-74; Department of Water & Power, supra, 82

Cal.App.4th at p. 1296.) At the same time, section 946.6 is remedial and is construed in favor of

relief whenever possible, with doubts resolved in favor of permitting a determination on the

merits. (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 275-76

(Bettencourt).) In determining whether an attorney’s mistake is excusable, the court considers

both the nature of the mistake and counsel’s overall diligence in investigating and pursuing the

claim. (Id. at pp. 276-277.)

III. EXPLANATION OF COURT’S RULING

Petitioners argue that their failure to timely present a claim to the County resulted from

excusable neglect because the available information pointed to City or private ownership, and

they acted promptly once County ownership was disclosed.

The County argues Petitioners did not exercise reasonable diligence because counsel

failed to investigate parcel ownership or present a protective claim before the deadline.

A. Timeliness of the application and petition

The claims accrued no later than July 31, 2025, when Ms. Mendoza passed away. The

City disclosed County ownership on May 12, 2026, and Petitioners presented their applications

for leave to present late claims to the County two days later, on May 14, 2026. (Schiavone Decl.

¶¶ 30, 33, Exh. J.) The applications were therefore presented within a reasonable time and within

one year of accrual. The County denied the applications on May 19, 2026. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35,

Exhs. K-L.) Petitioners filed the present petition on June 4, 2026, well within six months of the

denial. Accordingly, the applications and petition were timely under Government Code sections

911.4 and 946.6.

B. Mistake and excusable neglect

The principal dispute is whether Petitioners exercised reasonable diligence in identifying

the County as a potentially responsible public entity.

The County argues counsel had several months before the claim deadline to investigate

ownership but did not search assessor records, parcel maps, GIS records, title records, or flood

control maps and did not present a protective claim to the County. Petitioners respond that the

information available during the claim period pointed elsewhere.

The evidence supports Petitioners’ position. Counsel was retained in approximately

September 2025 and reviewed the San Bernardino Police Department news release and

Ms. Mendoza’s death certificate. (Schiavone Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8-9.) The news release identified the

incident location only as “Pacific Street/Perris Hill Park Road,” and the death certificate

identified the place of injury as Perris Hill Park Road; neither identified County-owned property

or a flood control parcel. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9, Exhs. A-B.) Counsel also reviewed information concerning

Perris Hill Park, which is operated by the City of San Bernardino. (Id. ¶ 10, Exh. C.)

On October 24, 2025, counsel requested the police report, animal control records, and

related investigative materials from the San Bernardino Police Department. (Schiavone Decl.

¶ 12, Exh. D.) On November 4, 2025, the Department declined to release further information

because the investigation remained open. (Id. ¶ 13, Exh. E.)

Petitioners also timely presented a claim to the City. In response, the City’s claims

administrator stated that the claim was “misdirected” and recommended that Petitioners pursue

“the private property owner, Linda Crume.” (Schiavone Decl. ¶¶ 15, 17-19, Exhs. F-G.) The

notice did not identify the County or County-owned flood control property.

The precise location was not identified as County property until May 12, 2026, when the

City stated in discovery that “the incident occurred on County-owned flood control property”

and produced a map distinguishing the incident site from Perris Hill Park. (Schiavone Decl.

¶¶ 30-31, Exhs. H-I.) Counsel states that, before May 12, 2026, he had no actual knowledge that

the incident occurred on County-owned property. (Id. ¶ 32.)

The County is right that counsel could have undertaken additional ownership

investigation after the City rejected the claim. The availability of additional investigative steps,

however, does not alone control whether counsel’s mistake was excusable; the Court considers

both the nature of the mistake and counsel’s overall diligence in investigating and pursuing the

claim. (Bettencourt, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 276, 279.) This case is distinguishable from

Department of Water & Power, where the claimant and counsel had possession of, or ready

access to, a police report identifying DWP’s work as the cause of flooding at the accident scene

but conducted no investigation into DWP’s potential liability. (Department of Water & Power,

supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1292-96.)

Here, the information available to counsel did not identify the County or County-owned

flood control property; counsel sought additional governmental records, timely presented a claim

to the City, and received a formal response directing Petitioners to a private property owner.

Although reliance on the City’s response alone would not establish reasonable diligence, under

the circumstances it reinforced the information counsel had obtained through his investigation.

Finally, Petitioners acted promptly once the mistake was discovered. The City disclosed

County ownership on May 12, 2026, and Petitioners presented their late claim applications two

days later. (Schiavone Decl. ¶¶ 30, 33.) This prompt action further supports the conclusion that

the failure to timely present a claim resulted from the ownership mistake rather than inattention.

Petitioners have established by a preponderance of the evidence that their failure to

timely present a claim to the County resulted from mistake or excusable neglect. (Department of

Water & Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293.)

C. Prejudice

Because Petitioners have established mistake or excusable neglect, the burden shifts to

the County to establish prejudice. The County does not identify any witness who became

unavailable, evidence that was lost, change in the condition of the property, or other

circumstance substantially impairing its ability to defend the claims. The County has not

established prejudice sufficient to defeat relief.1

IV. CONCLUSION Petitioners’ request for relief from the claim-presentation requirements as to the County

of San Bernardino is GRANTED. Petitioners have established that their failure to timely present

a claim resulted from mistake or excusable neglect, and the County has failed to establish

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court

1 The Court need not resolve Petitioners’ additional assertions concerning the County’s alleged pre-incident knowledge of the dogs or the ultimate merits of the proposed claims. Those issues are not necessary to determine whether relief from the claim presentation requirement should be granted. Petitioners also request an order permitting them to amend the complaint, authorizing particular causes of action against the County, and determining that certain claims relate back to the original complaint.

Government Code section 946.6 authorizes relief from the claim presentation requirement. It does not require the Court, on this petition, to determine whether a proposed amended complaint relates back, whether particular causes of action are otherwise timely, or whether those causes of action are legally sufficient. Those issues may be addressed through the procedures governing amendment of pleadings and any subsequent challenge to the amended pleading.