Jasmin Rangel et al v. Chino Valley Unified School District et al

Filing 62

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS PETITIONS FOR RELIEF FROM CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 945.4 (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, (lc)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

JASMIN RANGEL, LUIS
RODRIGUEZ, and I.R., a minor
by and through his guardians
ad litem JASMIN RANGEL and
LUIS RODRIGUEZ; DOMINIQUE
DIXON, and S.I., by and
through his guardian ad
litem DOMINIQUE DIXON,

15
Plaintiffs,
16
v.
17
18
19
20

CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, HAYMATTIE MOHAMED,
ADRIENNE SMITH, LUKE
HACKNEY, WAYNE JOSEPH,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. EDCV 15-01218 DDP (DTBx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
PETITIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §
945.4
[Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.]

21
22

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Petitions for

23

Relief from California Government Code § 945.4.

24

After hearing oral argument and considering the parties’

25

submissions, the Court adopts the following Order.

26

I.

(Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.)

BACKGROUND

27

This civil rights and torts case by two minors through their

28

guardian ad litems alleges that certain individuals teaching at a
Chino Valley elementary school physically and verbally abused their

1

students, including the two minors here, who both have

2

disabilities.

3

Chino Valley Unified School District (“CVUSD”), teacher’s aide

4

Haymattie Mohamed, teacher Adrienne Smith, principal Luke Hackney,

5

and Superintendent of CVUSD Wayne Joseph.

(See generally Compl.)

Plaintiffs have sued the

(Id. ¶ 9-13.)

6

Plaintiffs allege both federal and state law claims based on

7

the allegations of abuse the minors S.I. and I.R. suffered at the

8

elementary school: violation of constitutional rights under § 1983;

9

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act; violation of

10

§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; violation of California Civil Code

11

§ 52.1; state law battery; state law intentional infliction of

12

emotional distress; state law negligence; state law negligent

13

supervision; state law violation of mandatory duty under California

14

Penal Code §§ 11165.3 to 11165.9; violation of California’s Unruh

15

Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51; and violation of California’s

16

Education Code § 220.

17

Plaintiffs also each filed a Petition for Relief from

18

California Government Code Section 945.4 with the Complaint.

19

Nos. 4, 5.)

20

II.

(Dkt.

Defendant CVUSD opposes these petitions.

DISCUSSION

21

In addition to their federal causes of action, Plaintiffs here

22

have California state law claims against a state government entity,

23

Chino Valley Unified School District (“CVUSD”).

24

are subject to the requirements of California’s Government Tort

25

Claims Act.

26

a prospective plaintiff to present a written claim to the public

27

entity before filing a lawsuit for damages against that entity.

28

Id. § 945.4.

Cal. Gov’t Code § 810 et seq.

Thus, Plaintiffs

Section 945.4 requires

There are strict procedures for the claim process,
2

1

including specific factual content that must be in the claim and a

2

time bar of six months for claims related to personal injury.

3

§§ 910, 911.2(a).

4

include: “(c) The date, place and other circumstances of the

5

occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted”

6

and “(d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation,

7

injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the

8

time of presentation of the claim.”

9

Id.

Relevant here, section 910 requires the claim to

Id. § 910(c), (d).

A claimant who fails to present a claim to a public entity in

10

the six-month time period can submit a written application to the

11

public entity for leave to present that late claim.

12

§ 911.4(a).

13

entity within a year of “the accrual of the cause of action.”

14

§ 911.4(b).

15

application, otherwise it is deemed denied.

16

The forty-five day time limit can be extended by agreement of the

17

parties.

18

statutorily mandated for the public entity to grant the

19

application, such as when “[t]he person who sustained the alleged

20

injury, damage or loss was a minor during all of the time specified

21

in section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.”

22

911.6(b)(2).

23

presented within six months, but if the claimant is a minor during

24

the six month period, then the public entity must grant the minor

25

leave to present a late claim.

26

Id.

The application should be submitted to the public
Id.

The public entity has forty-five days to act on the

Id. § 911.6(a).

Id. § 911.6(a), (c).

Additionally, certain situations are

Id. §

That is, section 911.2 requires a claim to be

If an application for leave to present a claim is denied by

27

the public entity (or deemed denied based on the entity’s failure

28

to act), then “a petition may be made to the court for an order
3

1

relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4.”

2

Thus, the petition would excuse the party’s failure to timely

3

present a claim to the public entity before filing suit.

4

statute also requires the petition to contain the same specific

5

factual content that the claim and application were required to

6

contain.

7

be filed within six months of the public entity’s denial of the

8

application.

9

Id. § 946.6(b).

Id. § 946.6(a).

Id.

The

Lastly, the petition to the court must

Id. § 946.6(c).

The petition should be filed in the California Superior Court

10

where venue is proper to hear the underlying claim, but federal

11

courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction have also heard these

12

petitions because the claim statute is not jurisdictional and “[a]

13

federal court properly exercises supplemental jurisdiction over

14

state law claims transactionally related to federal claims.”

15

v. City of Escondido, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1114-15 (S.D. Cal.

16

2001).

17
18
19

A.

Perez

Petition from I.R.
1.

Plaintiffs’ Petition

On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff I.R. filed an application with

20

CVUSD for leave to present a late claim.

21

Dkt. No. 4-2, at 2 (Application).)

22

“[a] public entity must grant a late claim application when the

23

claimant was a minor during the entire six month claims-

24

presentation period, as long as the claimant applied for permission

25

within a reasonable time (not to exceed one year) after the cause

26

of action accrued.”

27

the cause of action accrued more than six months prior to October

28

20, 2014, but less than a year, and that the claimant was a minor

The application stated that

(Id. at 3 ¶ 1.)

4

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 1,

The application stated that

1

during that time.

2

that from August to December 2013, I.R. was a student at a CVUSD

3

school and in the classroom of an allegedly abusive teacher’s aide.

4

(Id. at 3-4 ¶ 6.)

5

home in connection to an investigation into abuse that a teacher’s

6

aide, Defendant Haymattie Mohamed, had allegedly committed.

7

at 4 ¶ 7.)

8

2013.

9

(Id. ¶¶ 2-4.)

Further, the application stated

In December 2013, police officers came to I.R.’s

(Id.

Thus, I.R.’s mother learned of the abuse in December

(Id.)
In an attached claim explanation, I.R. also stated that during

10

the August to December 2013 school period, “[I.R.] would come home

11

with bruises, scratches, and other injuries, experience

12

uncontrolled crying, and exhibit extreme fear of going to school.”

13

(Id. at 7 (Claim Attachment).)

14

“full extent of the abuse suffered by claimant [I.R.] is unknown,”

15

particularly as I.R. was only about seven years old at the time and

16

“has been diagnosed with autism and cerebral palsy, and has very

17

limited communication skills.”

18

contact CVUSD and police department authorities after the police

19

visit in December 2013 to learn more about the investigation into

20

the abuse at I.R.’s school, but she stated that she never received

21

an adequate response, leading her to file the claim.

22

(Rangel Decl.).)

23

The attachment stated that the

(Id.)

I.R.’s mother attempted to

(Id. at 10

On November 6, 2014, CVUSD sent a letter denying the late

24

claim application and providing a notice of insufficiency on the

25

claim as to the dates provided and the injury description.

26

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 2, Dkt. No. 4-3.)

27

deficiencies should be corrected immediately.”

28

26, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel provided CVUSD with an amended
5

The notice said that “the
(Id.)

On November

1

application addressing the deficiencies alleged in the denial

2

letter.

3

the claim was amended to state:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 4-4.)

The attachment to

On or about December 12, 2013, officers of the Chino
Hills Police Department came to [I.R.]’s parents’ home in
connection with their investigation of a CPS complaint
against Mohamed who physically abused [I.R.]. A mandated
reporter called CPS and stated that Mohamed yelled at
[I.R.], and then grabbed his arm which made him cry and
left a big bruise. The school did not report this incident
to [I.R.]’s mother Jasmin Rangel, and she was unaware of
the abuse suffered by her son until the police officers
came to her home on December 12, 2013, the day this
particular incident occurred.
Jasmin Rangel noticed significant changes in [I.R.]’s
behavior since August of 2013 when he was assigned to Smith
and Mohamed’s classroom. [I.R.] would come home with
scratches, bruises and other injuries, and was afraid to go
to school and would cry uncontrollably. [I.R.] is nonverbal
and could not tell his mother what was happening to him at
school.
The full extent of the abuse suffered by [I.R.] is
unknown. On information and belief, claimant alleges that
he was exposed to physical, verbal and emotional abuse and
neglect while in Smith’s and Mohamed’s care. The abusive
conditions in the classroom have existed for a substantial
period of time and were known to the responsible
administrators of the Chino Valley Unified School District.
(Id. at 7 (Claim Attachment).)
On January 20, 2015, Plaintiffs received a second denial of

20

the late claim application from CVUSD, which denied the amended

21

application.

22

hereby given that the Amended Application For Permission to Present

23

Late Claim which you presented to the Chino Valley Unified School

24

District on behalf of [I.R.], a Minor, on or about November 26,

25

2014 was denied on January 20, 2015.”).)

26

prior to receiving this denial letter, Plaintiffs’ counsel had

27

emailed the responsible party at CVUSD regarding the amended

28

application.

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 4, Dkt. No. 4-5 (“Notice is

On January 15, 2015,

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 5, Dkt. No. 4-6 (email).)
6

The

1

email argued that under California Government Code section

2

911.6(b)(2), the permission to file a late claim must be granted

3

because of the claimant’s minor status.

4

stated that because CVUSD had not responded to the November 26

5

amended application that the application would be deemed denied as

6

of January 8, 2015.

7

CVUSD emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel back on January 21, 2015, stating

8

that counsel would shortly receive a letter denying the amended

9

application.

10

(Id.)

(Id.)

Further, the email

The third party claim administrator for

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 6, Dkt. No. 4-7 (email).)

Therefore, on June 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint

11

in this Court, along with a petition for relief from the

12

requirement to present a timely claim to the public entity prior to

13

filing suit, as required under California Government Code section

14

945.4.

15
16

2.

Defendant’s Opposition

Defendant CVUSD opposes the petition for I.R.’s claim to be

17

excused from the procedural requirements of presenting a claim in

18

the California code.

19

petition was untimely filed because it should have been filed on

20

May 6, 2015, not June 22.

21

the petition lacks certain required factual information.

22

Lastly, if the Court were to grant the petition, CVUSD claims that

23

the state law claims against CVUSD should be limited to events and

24

injuries that occurred “no earlier than October 20, 2013.”

25

(Opp’n, Dkt. No. 52.)

(Id. at 1.)

CVUSD argues that the

Further, CVUSD claims that
(Id.)

(Id.)

First, CVUSD claims that I.R.’s petition is late because CVUSD

26

denied I.R.’s application for leave to present a late claim on

27

November 6, 2014.

28

obligation for CVUSD to respond to the amended application.

(Id. at 7.)

According to CVUSD, there was no

7

1

Instead, at the very latest, the application should have been

2

deemed denied by December 4, 2014, which was 45 days after the

3

application was submitted and the date the statutory scheme sets

4

for when an application is otherwise “deemed denied.”

5

8.)

6

6, 2014, Plaintiffs had six months from that date to file a

7

petition, which would be May 6, 2015.1

8

Plaintiffs waited until June 22, 2015, to file the petition at the

9

same time as the complaint in this action.

10
11

(Id. at 7-

But since there was a formal denial of the claim on November

(Id. at 9.)

(Id.)

Instead,

Therefore, CVUSD

claims the petition is time barred and must be denied.

(Id.)

Additionally, CVUSD argues that I.R.’s petition lacks the

12

information required by California Government Code § 946.6(b)(3),

13

which in turn requires the petition to contain the information in

14

section 910.

15

application, and claim all failed to meet these requirements

16

because they do not contain the date of the occurrence that gave

17

rise to the claim and a general description of the injury.

18

Defendants argue the petition and application are also required to

19

explain why the claim was not timely presented in the first

20

instance, within 6 months of the injury occurring, and Plaintiffs

21

failed to include that information as well.

22

(Id. at 9.)

CVUSD states that the petition,

(Id.)

(Id. at 10.)

Further, CVUSD argues that the petition must be successfully

23

and timely presented to a court of proper jurisdiction before a

24

claim against a public state entity such as CVUSD can be allowed to

25

go forward under California law.

(Id. at 11-14.)

In anticipation

26
1

27
28

If the Court uses the December 4, 2014, date as the date
of denial, the petition would still be untimely filed according to
Defendants because it would be more than six months later when
filed on June 22, 2015.
8

1

of Plaintiffs’ argument that no petition is necessary in this case

2

because CVUSD was required to grant the application to present a

3

late claim, CVUSD cites a case that did require timely application

4

and petitions to bring a cause of action against a state entity,

5

J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School District, 240 Cal. App.

6

4th 1019 (2015), review granted and opinion superseded by 362 P.3d

7

431 (Cal. S. Ct. 2015).

8

acknowledges that J.M. is not valid law because the opinion has

9

been vacated on the California Supreme Court’s grant of the

(Opp’n, Dkt. No. 52, at 11-14.)

CVUSD

10

petition for review, but argues that the reasoning of the case

11

should apply here and require timely presentation of a petition

12

before the claims are allowed to go forward.

13

(Id. at 13-14.)

Lastly, CVUSD argues that if the Court is inclined to grant

14

the petition, then I.R. should be limited to alleging injuries from

15

October 20, 2013, which is a year prior to when the application to

16

file a late claim was filed on his behalf.

17

states that the petitions describe strange behavior and injuries

18

beginning in August 2013, but that I.R.’s parent did not do

19

anything to investigate this until the police showed up at her

20

house in December 2013.

21

excuse for failing to file an application earlier.

22
23

3.

(Id. at 16.)

(Id. at 15.)

CVUSD

Therefore, there was no

Plaintiffs’ Reply

Plaintiffs maintain that because I.R. was a minor during the

24

applicable claim time period, the mandatory provisions of

25

California Government Code § 911.6(b)(2) apply here, which required

26

CVUSD to grant the application and allow I.R. to present a late

27

claim.

28

this both times I.R. presented the claim and application,

(Reply, Dkt. No. 56, at 1.)

9

Because CVUSD failed to do

1

Plaintiffs claim they need not have petitioned the Court, and

2

therefore the Court should grant the petition.

3

argue that currently valid California law as set forth in the case

4

E.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 194 Cal. App. 4th 736

5

(2011), states that where an application is presented for leave to

6

present a late claim and the relief is mandatory under section

7

911.6(b)(2), then the erroneous denial of the application satisfies

8

the claim requirement in section 945.4.

9

at 747-48; Reply at 5.)

10

(Id.)

Plaintiffs

(E.M., 194 Cal. App. 4th

Plaintiffs also argue that the application to CVUSD in

11

November 2014 was timely because it was within a year of I.R.’s

12

mother learning of the facts that gave rise to the claim and

13

because I.R. was subject to “a continuing pattern of abuse.”

14

(Reply at 6.)

15

scratches on her son could have been signs of abuse, as she thought

16

they were the result of I.R. playing with siblings and friends at

17

school.

18

(Police Report).)

19

when dealing with a nonverbal, disabled child to determine that

20

abuse was taking place at the school.

21

mother did not discover the continuing abuse until December 2013.

22

According to Plaintiffs, this means that both of the applications

23

in November 2014 were within a year of the accrual of the action,

24

which is measured by the date of discovery of the abuse and

25

includes the full continuation of the abuse.

26

Jasmin Rangel never knew that the bruises and

(Id. at 2 (citing Yarnykh Decl., Dkt. No. 56-1, Ex. 6
Further, those injuries were “too ambiguous”

(Id. at 7.)

Thus, I.R.’s

Further, the petition to the Court was timely, Plaintiffs

27

argue, because the last denial was on January 20, 2015, and the

28

petition was filed on June 22, 2015, less than six months later.
10

1

(Id. at 1.)

2

and amended at the direction of CVUSD in the first denial letter —

3

was the claim, which had deficiencies in the dates and description

4

of the injuries.

5

claim can be amended before the section 911.2 time period or before

6

final action is taken by the public entity on the claim.

7

Plaintiffs argue that they amended the claim as directed by CVUSD

8

and the final action was the January 20, 2015 letter of denial.

9

(Id. at 9-10.)

10

The only part of the application that was amended —

(Id. at 9.)

Section 910.6(a) provides that a

Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the doctrine of equitable

11

estoppel applies here to excuse any lateness of the petitions.

12

(Id. at 11-12.)

13

from arguing the petition was untimely because:

14

Plaintiffs claim that CVUSD should be estopped

(1)

CVUSD was on notice that I.R. sustained an injury at
the hands of a classroom aide, and the facts, as
Plaintiff knew them at the time, were presented to
CVUSD in writing;

(2)

in the initial notice of rejection of the Application,
CVUSD included additional language about insufficiency
of the claim and stated that it must be corrected
immediately — obviously intending for I.R. to comply
with the instructions, and I.R. had a right to believe
that his action was anticipated and that CVUSD
intended him to act and amend the claim;

(3)

I.R. had no reason to believe that CVUSD will not
honor his Application or the Amended Application and
violate the mandatory language of the statute, as both
were filed within a year of the accrual of action — at
no time did I.R. suspect that CVUSD would hold him to
the denial of the original Application as the date
commencing the statute of limitations; [and]

(4)

. . . in reliance on CVUSD’s instructions, I.R.
supplemented the information in his claim.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that I.R. reasonably believed

26

(Id.)

27

that the January 20, 2014 denial letter was the notice that began

28
11

1

his statute of limitations in presenting a petition and CVUSD

2

should be equitably estopped from arguing otherwise.

3

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the petitions included all the

4

required information under the relevant statutory sections, as did

5

the applications and claims.

6
7

4.

(Id. at 12-13.)

Court’s Analysis

First, the Court holds that the petitions, claims, and

8

applications comply with the content requirements in the statutory

9

scheme as set forth in section 910.

The relevant dates (as known

10

to Plaintiffs at that time) as well as I.R.’s injuries and the

11

events that caused those injuries (again, as known to Plaintiffs at

12

that time) were explained in sufficient detail in the papers

13

provided to CVUSD at every step of the claim process, including in

14

the total papers provided to the Court at the petition stage.

15

Further, after providing notice that the claim as presented was

16

deficient on two requirements, Plaintiffs amended their claim and

17

provided more detail.

18

substance of the petition, application, and claims were sufficient

19

to put CVUSD on notice of the claim and to satisfy the statutory

20

requirements.

21

Therefore, the Court holds that the

Second, the Court holds that the petition to this Court was

22

timely.

Under E.M., it appears that the petition could be

23

unnecessary because of the statutory requirement that a public

24

entity, such as CVUSD, grant an application for leave to file a

25

late claim for a minor claimant within a year of the accrual of the

26

claim.

27

court in E.M. appears to set forth the rule that petitioning the

28

court is not required.

Because CVUSD erroneously denied I.R.’s application, the

The Court acknowledges that Defendant
12

1

challenges this understanding of the law based on the question

2

presented on the petition for review to the California Supreme

3

Court.

4

petition and finds it was timely or else excused by equitable

5

estoppel.

6

Thus, the Court examined the actual timeliness of the

CVUSD’s first denial of the application on November 6, 2014,

7

directed I.R. to correct the noted deficiencies in the claim

8

“immediately” in order for the claim to be considered.

9

unclear why this date would be the applicable one for determining

Thus, it is

10

the statute of limitations — CVUSD instead put the Plaintiffs on

11

notice that CVUSD would consider (and required) an amended claim.

12

Plaintiffs filed an amended claim on November 26, 2014.

13

Plaintiffs’ counsel communicated with the third party claims

14

administrator via email in January 2015, with Plaintiffs receiving

15

the formal denial of the application (with no noted deficiencies)

16

on January 20, 2015.

17

principles or the operation of the statute of limitations, January

18

20, 2015, is the date from which the Court calculates the

19

timeliness of the petitions and finds that the petitions were

20

timely filed less than six months later on June 22, 2015.

Then,

Thus, whether by equitable estoppel

21

Therefore, for good cause shown, the Court grants I.R.’s

22

petition for relief from the requirements of California Government

23

Code § 945.4.

24

CVUSD based on Plaintiffs’ allegation of continued abuse since

25

August 2013, Jasmin Rangel’s discovery of the abuse in December

26

2013, and the presentation of the applications and claims in

27

November 2014, which was within a year of Jasmin Rangel’s

28

discovery.

The applications and claims were timely presented to

The petition was timely as discussed above.
13

The

1

explanation for the failure to present a timely claim — namely, the

2

late discovery by Jasmin Rangel and the difficulty communicating

3

with the school about the abuse investigation — is sufficient to

4

show good cause.

5

in this Court.

6

B.

7
8
9

Therefore, the claims against CVUSD are properly

Petition from S.I.
1.

Plaintiffs’ Petition

On March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent CVUSD a letter
with an application for permission to present a late claim

10

attached.

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 5-2.)

11

the same assertion as I.R.’s letter regarding the claimant’s minor

12

status during the relevant time period and the statutory

13

requirement to grant permission to present a late claim in that

14

instance.

15

student at the same school as I.R. with same teachers during the

16

2013 to 2014 school year.

17

that around June 2, 2014, S.I.’s mother was notified by the school

18

that S.I. had “fell and bumped his head” on the edge of his desk,

19

but that S.I.’s mother did not believe the school because “the

20

edges of the desks were rounded and the wound on [S.I.]’s forehead

21

required stapling.”

(Id. at 3-4 ¶¶ 1-4.)

The letter had

Further, S.I. was alleged to be a

(Id. at 4 ¶ 6.)

The application stated

(Id. ¶ 7.)

22

The attachment to the claim stated that S.I. was also about

23

seven to eight during the 2013 to 2014 school year and that S.I.

24

“has been diagnosed with autism and has very limited communication

25

skills.”

26

to the June 2, 2014 incident, S.I.’s teacher, Defendant Adrienne

27

Smith, had cut S.I. with her wedding ring and that since August

28

2013, when S.I. entered Smith’s and Mohamed’s classroom, S.I.

(Id. at 7.)

The attachment further explained that prior

14

1

“would come home with scratches, bruises and other injuries, was

2

afraid to go to school and would cry uncontrollably.”

3

also “started to violently shake [his mother’s] arms to get her

4

attention, a behavior that he apparently modeled after Smith and

5

Mohamed.”

6

abuse and injuries were not known.

7

(Id.)

(Id.)

S.I.

The claim stated that the full extent of the
(Id.)

On April 28, 2015, CVUSD denied the application.

(Yarnykh

8

Decl., Ex. 2, Dkt. No. 5-2, at 12.)

9

sent a “Return of Untimely Claim,” which told Plaintiffs’ counsel

Further, that same day, CVUSD

10

that the claim was not presented within six months of the events of

11

June 2, 2014, much less the allegations about abuse beginning in

12

August 2013, and thus it was untimely and leave must be sought to

13

file a late claim.

14

(Yarnykh Decl., Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 5-2, at 14.)

Therefore, on June 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint

15

in this Court, along with a petition for relief from the

16

requirement to present a timely claim to the public entity prior to

17

filing suit, as required under California Government Code section

18

945.4.

19

2.

20

Defendant’s Opposition

Defendant CVUSD also opposes this petition.

(Opp’n, Dkt. No.

21

53.)

22

information required under the statutory scheme in section 910,

23

which means it must be denied.

24

the petition, Defendant also requests that the state law claims be

25

limited to any injuries that arose from March 25, 2014, onward.

26

(Id.)

27
28

Defendant argues that the petition does not contain the

(Id. at 1.)

If the Court grants

CVUSD argues that S.I.’s petition does not contain all the
information required under California Government Code section
15

1

946.6(b)(3), which incorporates the requirements of section 910.

2

(Id. at 6-7.)

3

not provide CVUSD with the date of the events that gave rise to the

4

claim or a general description of the injury underlying the claim.

5

(Id.)

6

why the claim was not timely presented to the public entity (i.e.,

7

within six months).

8

incorporates its arguments described above that support its

9

contentions that the petition process to a court is mandatory based

10
11

Specifically, CVUSD argues that the petition does

Further, the petition fails to provide an explanation for

(Id. at 6.)

on the vacated decision in J.M.

Additionally, Defendant CVUSD

(Id. at 7-11.)

Lastly, CVUSD argues that S.I.’s claims — should the Court

12

grant his petition — should be limited to those occurring no

13

earlier than March 25, 2014.

14

for leave to present a late claim was filed on March 25, 2015, and

15

an application must be filed no later than one year from the date

16

the injury occurred.

17

allegations that injuries could have occurred beginning in August

18

2013 (the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year), must be struck

19

from the state law claims because they were not timely presented to

20

CVUSD in the March 2015 application and there is no explanation for

21

S.I.’s failure to present those claims before March 2015.

22

12-13.)

23

3.

(Id. at 11-13.)

(Id. at 12.)

S.I.’s application

Thus, CVUSD argues that the

(Id. at

Plaintiffs’ Reply

24

Plaintiffs request that the Court grant S.I.’s petition,

25

including the allegations from before March 2014, because the claim

26

was timely presented to CVUSD and the petition includes all the

27

necessary information.

28

Plaintiffs also reiterate that under the law as explained in E.M.,

(Reply, Dkt. No. 55, at 2, 8-9.)

16

1

no petition is necessary here because CVUSD improperly denied the

2

minor claimant’s application.

3

(Id. at 3-5.)

According to Plaintiffs, S.I.’s mother, Dominique Dixon, had

4

no reason to believe her son’s injuries or behavioral issues prior

5

to June 2, 2014, were due to abuse at the CVUSD school.

6

2.)

7

forehead staples, and Dixon was told that it was due to S.I.

8

bumping his head on his desk.

9

explanation of the injury because the desk had round edges.

(Id. at

On June 2, 2014, S.I. was injured at school, requiring

(Id.)

Dixon did not believe this
(Id.)

10

Thus, Plaintiffs argue that the claim accrued upon S.I.’s mother

11

discovering on June 2, 2014, that her son sustained injuries caused

12

by abuse at the school that could relate to his behavioral issues

13

and injuries since the beginning of the school year in August 2013.

14

(Id. at 2, 5-7.)

15

was a continuation of S.I.’s abuse from August 2013 until his

16

mother’s discovery of the abuse on June 2, 2014; thus, under both

17

the continuing abuse and delayed discovery doctrines, the

18

presentation of the claim was timely because it was within a year

19

of discovery.

20

As was argued with I.R., Plaintiffs claim there

(Id. at 5-7.)

Plaintiffs also claim that this petition is timely because it

21

was filed within six months of CVUSD denying S.I.’s application for

22

leave to present a late claim.

23

application on April 28, 2015, and the petition was filed in this

24

Court on June 22, 2015, which is less than two months later.

25

at 7.)

26

claim was filed: S.I.’s mother had no reason to know until June 2,

27

2014, that her son was abused by someone at school and that after

28

June 2, 2014, she investigated the issue and filed the application.

(Id. at 7-8.)

CVUSD denied the

(Id.

The petition also explains why the application for a late

17

1

(Id. at 7-8; Yarnykh Decl., Dkt. No. 55-1, Ex. 1 at 3-4 ¶¶ 1-8

2

(Application).)

3

Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the petition does comply with

4

the statutory content requirements in section 910.

(Reply, Dkt.

5

No. 55, at 8-9.)

6

which include the relevant dates, general description of the

7

injury, and explains why the claim was not timely presented.

8

Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that CVUSD’s letters of denial to

9

S.I.’s claim and application did not include a notice of

The petition includes the application and claim,

(Id.)

10

deficiency.

11

were not on notice that the claims were deficient in any way and,

12

thus, CVUSD has waived the issue.

13
14

4.

(Id. at 9.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that they

(Id.)

Court’s Analysis

First, the Court finds this petition timely under California’s

15

statutory scheme.

16

of the application to present a late claim and the filing of a

17

petition in this Court.

18

within a year of Dominique Dixon becoming aware of the facts giving

19

rise to the claim.

20

Less than six months passed between the denial

The application was also sent to CVUSD

Therefore, the petition is not time barred.

Second, the Court holds that the petition and the included

21

application and claim contain all the required information under

22

section 910.

23

injuries occurred on to the best of S.I.’s mother’s knowledge (June

24

2, 2014, and then perhaps continuing back throughout the 2013-2014

25

school year); states a general description of S.I.’s injuries as

26

described above; and explains why the claim was presented late

27

(S.I.’s minor status and limited ability to communicate; S.I.’s

28

mother’s investigation into the abuse after S.I.’s forehead

Specifically, the petition states the dates that the

18

1

injury).

2

and CVUSD the facts necessary to know what claim is being presented

3

and satisfy the statutory requirements.

4

All of the papers taken as a whole present to the Court

Lastly, because there are allegations and sufficiently pled

5

facts of S.I. suffering continuing abuse and the delayed discovery

6

of that abuse by S.I.’s parent, the Court will not limit as a

7

matter of law the allegations to those injuries that occurred no

8

earlier than March 25, 2014.

9

Court grants S.I.’s petition for relief from California Government

10

Code § 945.4.

11

IV.

12
13

Therefore, for good cause shown, the

S.I.’s claims are properly in this Court.

CONCLUSION
For all the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiffs’ Petitions.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: May 9, 2016
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19