Hayes v. LA County Met. Transp. Auth.
Filed 3/28/07 Hayes v. LA County Met. Transp. Auth. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
PAULETTE HAYES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. | B190768 (Super. Ct. No. BS 096600) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Rita J. Miller, Judge. Affirmed.
________
Law Offices of Todd B. Becker and James F. Rees for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Briskin, Latzanich & Pene and Katherine B. Pene for Defendant and Respondent.
_________
Paulette Hayes appeals from the trial courts order denying her petition for an order allowing her to file a late claim for damages with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Hayes alleges that on September 25, 2003, she was injured when the MTA bus on which she was a passenger collided with an MTA van. On March 24, 2004, Hayes filed a claim for damages with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
By operation of law, Hayes claim was deemed denied on Monday, May 10, 2004. (Gov. Code, 912.4, subd. (c).) On August 4, 2004, Los Angeles County sent Hayes a notice of the May 10 denial. On September 7, 2004, Los Angeles County sent Hayes a further letter explaining that the county has no jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred, because the county does not have an ownership interest in either vehicle and does not have responsibility for the operation or maintenance of either vehicle.
On September 23, 2004, Hayes filed an application for permission to present a late claim with the MTA. The application stated that the reason no timely claim was filed was mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect, in that the wrong public entity was served[.] The application gave no further explanation and included no showing of diligence. The MTA denied the application on November 4, 2004.
On May 5, 2005, Hayes filed in the superior court a petition for an order permitting her late claim against the MTA. The petition repeated the statement that mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect, in that the wrong public entity was served, but it again gave no further explanation and included no showing of diligence.
The trial court conducted a hearing concerning the petition on February 23, 2006. The court denied the petition on March 1, 2006, on the ground that there was no showing of excusable neglect because a reasonable person would have conducted further inquiry than was conducted here. Hayes timely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Before the trial court may relieve a claimant from the statutory tort claim filing requirements, the claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence both that the application to the public entity for leave to file a late claim was presented within a reasonable time and that the failure to file a timely claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293, italics omitted.) In deciding whether counsels error is excusable, [a reviewing court] looks to: (1) the nature of the mistake or neglect; and (2) whether counsel was otherwise diligent in investigating and pursuing the claim. (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276.) We review the trial courts denial of Hayes petition for abuse of discretion. (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293.) The trial court has not abused its discretion as long as its decision is within the range of options available under governing legal criteria in light of the evidence before the tribunal. (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1680.) The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court. (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478-479 [243 Cal.Rptr. 902, 749 P.2d 339].) (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272.)
DISCUSSION
Hayes argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law by requiring a showing of reasonably diligent investigation. The argument fails because it is based on a misreading of the trial courts decision.
The trial court did not conclude that a showing of diligence was legally required. Rather, the court correctly reasoned that diligence matters (i.e., diligence is a relevant factor for the court to consider) in determining whether counsels error is excusable. The court thus rejected Hayes argument that a showing of diligence is unnecessary or unimportant. (Italics added.) And the court correctly observed that there is no evidence of diligence in this case.
The trial court applied the appropriate legal criteria to the undeniably thin evidentiary record before it, and the courts decision did not exceed the bounds of reason. There was no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
We concur:
MALLANO, Acting P.J.
VOGEL, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
