Vasquez v. City of Pasadena CA2/1

Filed 5/24/21 Vasquez v. City of Pasadena CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

RITO VASQUEZ, B309082

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV09493) v.

CITY OF PASADENA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Randolph M. Hammock, Judge. Affirmed. Irving Meyer for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michele Beal Bagneris, City Attorney, and Arnold F. Lee, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________

Rito Vasquez (Vasquez) attempted to sue his former employer, the City of Pasadena (the City), for wrongful termination. After missing the initial deadline to file a claim with the City, Vasquez filed a petition with the trial court for leave to bring a lawsuit against the City. The trial court denied his petition for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to relieve Vasquez from the claim filing requirement. For the same reason, we affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Vasquez worked at the City as a maintenance worker for approximately eight and one-half years. On August 8, 2019, the City terminated Vasquez’s employment. Nearly eight months later, on April 6, 2020, Vasquez filed a claim with the City alleging wrongful termination. On May 7, 2020, the City denied Vasquez’s claim because it had not been submitted within six months of his termination, as required by the Tort Claims Act. (Gov. Code, §§ 901, 911.2.)1 The City informed Vasquez that his “only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to [the City] for leave to present a late claim [per] sections 911.4 to 912.2, inclusive, and section 946.6.” Vasquez did not submit a late claim application to the City. Instead, he filed a petition with the trial court, requesting leave to bring a lawsuit without first obtaining an administrative resolution of his claim. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Vasquez had not complied with the procedural requirements set forth in