ESTRADA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018261: ESTRADA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 06/02/2026 Hearing on Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

25CV018261: ESTRADA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 06/02/2026 Hearing on Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 in Department 16D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition by Diane Estrada for an order relieving her from the provisions of Government Code section 945.4, is GRANTED, based on the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by Petitioner Diane Estrada on a rainy November 20, 2024, when she slipped and fell while stepping from the bottom of a flooded stairwell onto an area owned by the City of Sacramento. Petitioner claims that the City’s negligence in failing to provide proper drainage of the area caused the bottom steps of the stairwell to become flooded, which caused her to fall.

Petitioner and her counsel conducted an investigation in order to determine the identity of the owner of the property where the incident had occurred. Petitioner’s initial investigation indicated that Ping Yuen Apartments (“Ping Yuen”) was the owner. Following Ping Yuen’s response to Petitioner’s demand letter, in which Ping Yuen asserted that it was neither the owner or manager of the property. Petitioner conducted a subsequent investigation which revealed that the City of Sacramento (“City’) owned the property in question. This discovery occurred after the expiration of the six-month period in which to file a timely governmental tort claim with the City.

Counsel for Petitioner has filed an application for permission to present a late claim with the City of Sacramento, which the City has denied. Petitioner now brings this petition for an order relieving her from the six-month claim filing requirement, pursuant to Govt. Code § 946.6. asserting that the untimely presentation of her claim was due to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018261: ESTRADA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 06/02/2026 Hearing on Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 in Department 16D

“excusable neglect”.

The City opposes the petition, asserting that: (1) Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she conducted a reasonably diligent investigation, and has therefore failed to establish excusable neglect; and (2) Petitioner’s delay has prejudiced the City by impairing its ability to investigate Petitioner’s claim of inadequate drainage at the location of her fall.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A declaration[1] submitted by Petitioner’s counsel, Annaliza Chou, provides a summary and timeline of Petitioner’s injury, her investigative efforts, and the presentation of her claim to the City, as follows:

November 20, 2024: Petitioner’s slip and fall injury occurs between Cowo Campus (918 5th street) and Ping Yuen Apartments (420 I Street);

November 25, 2024: Petitioner reports her slip and fall to the Ping Yuen property manager, who informs Petitioner that the area where her fall occurred is owned by Ping Yuen Apartments;

Petitioner retains counsel (Stawicki Anderson & Sinclair), and states during intake that the injury occurred as “she was walking down the stairwell at the back of the complex and heading to the parking lot” at the address of 420 I Street;

December 2, 2024 An assessor’s search of 420 I street identified the owner of the subject property as Ping Yuen Associates. (Chou Decl., Ex. 1);

January 2, 2025 Petitioner provides her counsel with a copy of an incident report from Ping Yuen, which gives the property address of the incident as 420 I Street. (Chou decl., Ex. 2);

No date provided An engineer inspects the location of Petitioner’s fall for drainage, and takes photos;

April 2, 2025 A description of the incident by Petitioner’s doctor confirms her counsels’ understanding, stating that “she was going down some stairs in the back of an apartment building”.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018261: ESTRADA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 06/02/2026 Hearing on Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 in Department 16D

(Chou Decl., Ex. 3);

May 30, 2025 Petitioner’s counsel sends a demand letter to Ping Yuen Apartments. (Chou del., Ex. 4);

June 12, 2025 Ping Yuen denies Petitioner’s claim, stating that its own investigation has determined that Ping Yuen did not own or manage the staircase or surrounding area where Petitioner fell. (Chou decl., Ex. 5);

A second assessor’s search is conducted which determines that the location of Petitioner’s fall is owned by the City of Sacramento. (Chou decl., Ex. 6)

June 24, 2025 Petitioner’s counsel files an application to present a late claim to the City. (Chou decl., Ex. 7)

July 3, 2025 The City denies Petitioner’s application to file late claim. (Chou decl., Ex. 8)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A claim for personal injury against a governmental entity must be presented to the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code § 911.2(a).) A claimant who fails to file a claim within the required six-month time period is permitted to apply to the public entity for permission to file a late claim. (Govt. Code § 911.4.) Upon the public entity’s denial of the application the claimant may petition the court for relief from the requirement of a timely claim presentation. (Govt. Code § 946.6.)

The Court is to make an independent determination of the petition for relief, based on the petition itself, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition. (Govt. Code § 946.6 (e).) The Court is required to grant relief, if: (1) the application under Govt. Code §911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year from the accrual of the cause of action, and was denied; and (2) the failure to present a timely claim was due to 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. (Govt. Code § 946.6 (c).)

A petitioner seeking relief under §946.6 must demonstrate mistake, inadvertence,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018261: ESTRADA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 06/02/2026 Hearing on Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 in Department 16D

surprise, or excusable neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. (Shaddox v. Melcher (1969) 270 Cal. App. 2d 598.) This requires a showing that his or her conduct was that of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. (People ex rel. Dept of Transportation v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 39.) It is not enough to show a mere failure to discover a fact until it is too late; the party seeking relief must establish that the failure to timely discover the fact occurred despite the exercise of reasonable diligence. (Dept. of Water and Power v Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 1288, 1293.)

IV. ANALYSIS

Petitioner has demonstrated the prerequisites set forth in Govt. Code §946.6 for filing this petition: (1) that she made an application to the City for permission to file a late claim; and (2) that the City has denied her application.

The Court finds that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her failure to file a timely claim was due to excusable neglect. The declaration of Ms. Chou as to Petitioner’s investigative efforts demonstrates that Petitioner and her counsel acted as reasonably prudent persons, and exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to determine the identity of the owner of the area where Petitioner fell. Petitioner was led to believe that Ping Yuen owned the property by Ping Yuen’s own property manager, which was confirmed by Ping Yuen’s incident report; and her initial investigation was reasonably premised on that belief. Upon learning that Ping Yuen was not the owner of the property, Petitioner’s counsel acted immediately (that same day) to obtain a second assessor’s report, which led to the discovery that the City was the actual owner.

The Court further finds that Petitioner filed her application for permission to file a late claim within a reasonable time (and not more than a year from her injury), as the application was filed within twelve days of discovering that the City was the true owner of the subject property.

The City has failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice as a result of the delay in receiving Petitioner’s claim. While the City asserts that “in light of the transient, weatheroriented conditions” the City’s investigation into the drainage issues at the subject location has been impaired, the City does not claim that the physical conditions at the subject location have changed, or that drainage of the area has been altered in any way since the date of Petitioner’s injury. In addition to its own investigation of the unchanged area, the City may, through discovery, obtain the photos of the area taken by Petitioner’s engineer in early 2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018261: ESTRADA vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 06/02/2026 Hearing on Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 in Department 16D

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s request for an order relieving her from the provisions of Govt. Code §945.4, which required her to file her tort claim with the City within six months of her injury, is GRANTED. In compliance with Govt. Code § 946.6(f), Petitioner is to file her action within 30 days of this order. [1] The Court notes that Ms. Chao’s declaration has not been signed under penalty of perjury. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) However, in opposing the motion, the City did not object to the declaration, and the Court therefore deems any potential objection waived.