Minor's Petition for Relief From Claim Requirement was Untimely where not Filed within Six Months after Late Claim Application was Deemed Denied

The Fourth Appellate District affirmed a trial court order denying a petition for relief from a Government Claims Act timely claim requirement.  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying as untimely a minor’s petition to present a late personal injury claim to a school district where the petition was filed more than six months after the minor’s application to present a late claim to the school district was deemed denied by operation of law. 

The minor J.M. suffered head trauma during a school-sponsored football game as a student at Fountain Valley High School.  He continued to participate in full-contact practice and began to feel sick. 

J.M. was diagnosed with double concussion syndrome several days later, at which point his causes of action accrued.  He did not present a personal injury claim to the Huntington Beach Union High School District (District) within six months as required by Government Claims Act §§945.4 and 911.2. 

J.M. retained counsel, who timely presented an application under §911.4 to present a late claim on the ground J.M. was a minor for the six-month period following the accrual of his causes of action.  The District did not act on the application, so that pursuant to §911.6(c), J.M.’s application was deemed denied by operation of law. 

A year later, J.M. petitioned under §946.6 for an order relieving him of the claim requirement. The trial court denied the petition as untimely because it was filed more than six months after the date on which his application to present a late claim was deemed denied by the District’s inaction. 

The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying J.M.’s petition.

The court of appeals concluded first that J.M.’s application for leave to present a late claim was deemed denied by operation of law when the District failed to act within 45 days.  Under §911.6(c): “[i]f the board fails or refuses to act on an application within the time prescribed by this section, the application shall be deemed to have been denied on the 45th day ....”

J.M. claimed that that section was irreconcilable with §911.6(b)(2), which provides that the board “shall grant the application” when the applicant was a minor. The court disagreed, concluding that there is no conflict or contradiction between the sections.  Simply put, while §911.6(b)(2) states that the board shall grant a minor’s application for leave to present a late claim, §911.6(c) addresses what happens when the board fails or refuses to act: the claim is deemed denied.  That was what happened here, and J.M.’s application was deemed denied by operation of law. 

The court rejected J.M.’s contrary arguments and observed that J.M. could not explain what the status of his application for leave to present a late claim would be, if it were not denied by operation of law.  The board had not granted or denied the claim.  J.M. admitted that the application had not been granted, yet he still argued that it had not been denied. 

When an application is denied by operation of law under §911.6(c), a claimant can challenge that denial only by petition to the superior court under §946.6 for relief from the claim requirement. The court reasoned that §946.6 supported its interpretation because it sets out nearly identical circumstances as those under which an application to present a late claim must be granted.  The section therefore recognizes that a board might deny, either expressly or by operation of law, an application to present a late claim brought on a ground set forth in §911.6(b) even though §911.6(b) states such application shall be granted.  J.M.’s approach, on the other hand, ignored and would nullify the procedures set out in §946.6 when a board fails to act on a §911.6(b) application. 

That meant J.M.’s petition was time-barred for not being filed within the six-month limitations period of §946.6.  Under §946.6(b)’s unambiguous terms: “The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.” As a result, the trial court did not err by denying J.M.’s petition on the ground it was untimely under the applicable six-month statute of limitations of §946.6(b). 

The court disagreed with E.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 736 to the extent it held that a plaintiff who was a minor at the time injuries were suffered satisfies the claim requirement of §945.4 simply by presenting an application for leave to present a late claim under §911.6(b)(2). 

The court held further that the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply, and the board was not required to give J.M. written notice of the denial of his application for leave to present a late claim under §911.8.

J.M. Huntington Beach Union High School District, October 1, 2015