Petition for Relief from Claim Presentation Requirements
Case No.: VCU330462 Date: May 26, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Petition for Relief from Claim Presentation Requirements Tentative Ruling: The Court's tentative ruling is to deny the petition, but to reserve its final ruling under Government Code section 946.6(e) based upon any evidence that may be presented at the hearing; Counsel may appear in any manner.
Facts In this matter, Petitioner Sierra Range Construction seeks an order relieving Petitioner from the claim presentation requirements of Government Code section 945.4 as to two claims: 1) Improper termination of public works contract regarding fencing Improper post-bid submission of bid security resulting in the awarding of the contract to another contractor
As to the first claim, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a contractual relationship on or about March 27, 2024 to install protective fencing. On August 1, 2024, Respondent issued a letter terminating the contract. The letter did not allege default, identify any breach, invoke default termination procedures or reference approval by Respondent's board. Petitioner's CEO states: "At the time [Petitioner's] contract was terminated by [Respondent], [Petitioner] had no reason to believe [Respondent] was acting in bad faith. At that time [Petitioner] did not possess facts suggesting violations of bidding laws or a lack of Board authority in actions taken by [Respondent]." (Declaration of Jones Jr P.7.)
As to the second claim, in August 2024, Respondent solicited bids for a replacement contractor as to the fencing project. Bids were due on or before 12:00 p.m. on September 23 27, 2024, and the bid opening was scheduled for October 1, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. Petitioner was not the lowest bidder and the contract was awarded to B & J Consulting Inc.
However, on November 18, 2024, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted a Public Records Act request. On November 26, 2026, Respondent produced records responsive thereto. Petitioner argues these records reflect that the cashier's check submitted by B & J as bid security was time stamped 3:56 pm. As such, Petitioner argues, the security was provided three days after the bid deadline and almost three hours after the bids were opened.
Petitioner's CEO states further "At that time [after receipt of the documents responsive to the PRA request], I realized the contract between SRC and LTRID did not authorize termination absent default. I then reviewed LTRID's website and board minutes for July and August of 2024, and there appears no agenda items or reference to terminating the contract between LTRID and SRC. I then realized the Board did not take action or approve the termination of the contract between LTRID and SRC." (Declaration of Jones, Jr. P.16.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On October 16, 2025, Petitioner, through counsel, sent a "demand for payment" which outlined these two claims, in addition to others. Relevant here, on November 15, 2025, Respondent, through counsel, sent letters returning the two claims noted above "...because [they were] not presented within twelve months after the event or occurrence as required by law. See Sections 901 and 911.2 of the Government Code. Because the claim[s] [were] not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim[s]."
Further, the letters stated: "Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Lower Tule River Irrigation District for leave to present a late claim. See Sections 911.4 to 912.2, inclusive, and Section 946. 6 of the Government Code. Under some circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. See Section 911.6 of the Government Code."
In response, on November 25, 2025, Petitioner presented an application for leave to present a late claim and attached claims for the two claims noted above. The application states "The claims for contract damages and violations of the Public Contract Code was presented with over a month's time left in the relevant claims period; one year. (GOV. Code Sec. 911.2.)"
In opposition to the petition, Respondent argues that the claims at issue are subject to the one year requirement under section 911.2, that there is no late claim application process available to such claims and therefore, there is no relief from the denial of the late claim application.
Authority and Analysis Under the Government Claims Act (the "Act"), a plaintiff bringing suit for monetary damages against a public entity or employees thereof must first present a claim to the public entity ("government claim") which must be acted upon or deemed rejected by the public entity. (Gov. Code Sec. 945.4)
The time frame from the date of accrual in which to present a claim depends on the nature of the claim. For recovery of monetary damages arising from death or injury to person or personal property, a claim must be submitted no later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2(a).) However, "[a] claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action."
Here, it is undisputed that both claims are related to "any other cause of action" and therefore must be submitted not later than one year after accrual. This, however, presents an issue as to the utilization of the late claim application procedure under Government Code section 911.4 entitled "Application to present claim not timely filed" which states, in relevant part: "(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 present that claim."
As such, the late claim application process has no effect here, where the claims are related to "any other cause of action" and allow a one year presentation period from the date of accrual. In other words, there is no late claim application process for claims that do not arise from death or injury to person or personal property. This finding is consistent with the statutory scheme. If a claim for "any other cause of action" must be presented within one year of accrual and a late claim application must be presented no later than one year from accrual, the deadlines for presentation and late claim application overlap entirely.
Under Government Code section 946.6(a), this petition for relief can only be made "[i]f an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6..." Here, there is no late claim application available under section 911.6 and therefore no relief from the denial of the late claim application available.
Government Code section 946.6(e) In ruling on a claim relief petition, the "court shall make an independent determination upon the petition. The determination shall be made upon the basis of the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition. " (Gov. Code Sec. 946.6, subd. (e).) (emphasis added.) Where no testimony is received, the trial court may rule on the basis of the petition and any declarations. (Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 708-709.)
Therefore, the Court is inclined to deny the petition, but must hold the hearing as to any additional evidence. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Jiroud, Shokouh vs. American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Co.