Pantaleon v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power CA2/8
Filed 6/2/22 Pantaleon v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
MARTIN PANTALEON et al., B308366
Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV01851) v.
LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary H. Strobel, Judge. Affirmed.
The Agopoglu Law Corporation and Berc Agopoglu for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Managing Assistant City Attorney, and Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.
_______________________
Martin Pantaleon, Richard D. Pantaleon, Richard L. Pantaleon Vergara, Jadira Y. Vergara, Miriam Fajardo, Maria Pantaleon, Jadira Vergara, and Juan Pantaleon (appellants) filed a petition pursuant to Government Code1 section 946.6 for relief from the Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.) requirement that a plaintiff present a timely claim to the Los Angeles County Department of Water and Power (LADWP) before bringing a tort action against it (§§ 911.2, 945.4). Appellants had filed an application for relief from the timely filing requirement. But this application for relief was, itself, untimely. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that because the application for relief was itself untimely, the court lacked jurisdiction to act. The court went on to hold that even if the court had jurisdiction, appellants had not shown their failure to timely file their claim was a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The trial court correctly found it was without jurisdiction to grant relief. We affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to appellants’ petition, their claim against LADWP arose from a house fire on February 19, 2018. Appellants allege that as a result of the fire, they sustained personal injuries and damages, including property damage, physical injuries, and emotional distress. They allege that firefighters who responded to the fire told appellants they believed electrical wires maintained by “Edison” (presumably
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)