Wood v. Pioneer Fire Protection Dist. CA3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/26/21 Wood v. Pioneer Fire Protection Dist. CA3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
    (El Dorado)
    ----
    KATHERINE WOOD,                                                                              C089712
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                    (Super. Ct. No. PC20190038)
    v.
    PIONEER FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    Katherine Wood appeals from the superior court’s denial of her petition for relief
    from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4.1, 2 Wood
    served the wrong public entity with her claim on the next to last day for doing so under
    the Government Claims Act (§ 810 et seq.). She now argues the court abused its
    1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.
    2This case was fully briefed on October 30, 2020. The panel as presently constituted
    was assigned this matter in May 2021.
    1
    discretion when it denied her petition seeking relief on the ground of mistake,
    inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect. We affirm.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Wood resigned from her job at the Pioneer Fire Protection District (District) on
    March 9, 2018.
    Nearly six months later, on Friday, September 7, 2018, Wood presented a claim to
    the County of El Dorado (County). In it, she alleged she had worked at the District as the
    district administrative secretary/assistant for five years until she was constructively
    discharged on March 9. Wood alleged she was harassed and retaliated against by the
    board of directors and District personnel for reporting what she understood to be
    unlawful activity, including “improper use of District funds,” and because her husband
    had made his own complaints.
    On September 12, 2018, the County rejected the claim, explaining that “[t]he
    Pioneer Fire Protection District is a separately constituted and governed public agency
    over which the County of El Dorado exercises no administrative or operational control.
    Any liability alleged to arise out of the conduct of employees or directors of the Pioneer
    Fire Protection District does not create a justiciable controversy between your client and
    the County of El Dorado.”
    On September 21, 2018, Wood presented a claim to the District. The District
    returned the claim because it had not been presented within six months.
    Wood submitted an application to the District for leave to present a late claim
    based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect.
    Specifically, the application stated that “[a]t the time the claim was submitted,
    [Wood]’s counsel was not aware that Pioneer Fire Protection District required that
    [c]laim [f]orms be submitted directly to the district rather than submitting it to the
    County.” The District denied the application.
    2
    Wood filed a petition for relief from the claim requirement in superior court based
    on the same grounds. We set forth the relevant argument in full, which was supported
    entirely by a declaration from Wood’s counsel:
    “When preparing the initial claim, [Wood]’s attorney reviewed [Wood]’s
    personnel file [which] confirms that [Wood] and District personnel were paid by the
    County of El Dorado and that [Wood]’s personnel action forms were County personnel
    forms. [Citation.]
    “Further, the []District website does not provide any information on submission of
    a claim, nor does it have a claim form that can be downloaded. Examining District
    documents obtained from her client, [Wood]’s attorney reviewed the Pioneer Fire
    Protection District Board of Directors Policy and Procedures Manual which specifically
    sets forth on page 7 that the District was formed as a Fire Protection District and named
    ‘Pioneer Fire Protection District of El Dorado County.’ [Citations.] The County governs
    Board elections [citation] and further statements in the manual state that [the District]’s
    code review is conducted by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. [Citation.]
    “The foregoing information was consistent with other information available to
    [Wood] and her attorney. [Wood]’s counsel had previously submitted other claims to
    small fire districts in El Dorado County and their employees directly to the El Dorado
    County Board of Supervisors, which claims were processed through the County.
    [Citation.]
    “Third, [Wood]’s attorney was also aware that the attorneys used by [the District]
    are the same attorneys who handled the other ongoing claim that was submitted directly
    to and processed by the County Board of Supervisors.
    “Based on the foregoing information, facts and background, [Wood] reasonably,
    but mistakenly[,] believed that the claims process would be the same for both Districts.
    Because the District did not notify [Wood] that the claim was presented to the wrong
    entity until after the timeframe to present the original claim had expired, [Wood] was
    3
    unable to resubmit the claim directly to [the District] prior to September 10, 2018.” (Fns.
    omitted.)
    In opposition, the District argued Wood and her counsel did not meet their burden
    to prove mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect and that neither of them
    exercised reasonable diligence. The District argued that due to her role as the
    administrative assistant for the fire chief, Wood was aware of the separateness of the
    District and the County. In particular, she knew she was paid by the District on County
    checks. Wood’s husband had served on the District’s board of directors. Additionally,
    the District argued the relationship between the District and County is easily discoverable
    with reasonable diligence through researching the relevant statutory law. Moreover, in
    2016, Wood’s counsel had received a rejection notice from the County in response to a
    claim regarding the Mosquito Fire Protection District that stated, “The Mosquito Fire
    Protection District is a separately constituted and governed public agency over which the
    County of El Dorado exercises no jurisdictional or operational control. Any liability
    alleged to arise out of the conduct of employees or directors of the Mosquito Fire
    Protection District does not create a justiciable controversy between your client and the
    County of El Dorado.” The District further argued that by the time Wood submitted her
    claim, it was too late to resubmit the claim with a different entity if it was rejected.
    The County was named as a real party in interest and it also opposed Wood’s
    petition.
    In reply, Wood’s counsel explained that she submitted a second claim to the
    County related to the Mosquito Fire Protection District case, and that the County never
    responded to the second claim at all. Wood argued the rejection of the first claim did not
    put her counsel on notice regarding the Pioneer Fire Protection District because Wood’s
    claim involves different legal issues and the Mosquito Fire Protection District lawsuit did
    not actually require a government claim.
    4
    In a May 3, 2019 order, the court denied Wood’s petition for relief from the claim
    presentation requirement. As relevant to this appeal, the court explained “[u]nder the
    totality of the circumstances presented, the conduct of counsel to once again file a Fire
    Protection District claim with the County over two years after counsel had learned that
    [f]ire [d]istricts in the County of El Dorado are separate and distinct public entities and
    failure to act with due diligence in researching the proper entity to present the claim to
    was not that of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances, and thus
    constituted inexcusable neglect.”
    Wood subsequently filed a request for dismissal as to the County without
    prejudice, and this dismissal was entered on June 5, 2019. The next day, Wood filed a
    timely notice of appeal from the order denying her petition for relief from the claim
    presentation requirement. 3
    II. DISCUSSION
    A.     Government Claim Presentation Requirements
    No suit for damages may be maintained against a public entity unless a written
    claim has first been presented to it. (§ 945.4.) A claim for personal injury must be
    presented “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2,
    subd. (a).) “When a claim . . . is not presented within that time, a written application may
    be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.” (§ 911.4, subd. (a).)
    “If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed denied pursuant
    to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner
    from Section 945.4.” (§ 946.6, subd. (a).) The court must grant a petition for relief from
    the claim requirement “if the claimant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence
    3 “An order denying a claim-relief petition is an appealable order because it effectively
    determines a petitioner’s right to relief from the claim presentation requirements.”
    (Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 
    220 Cal.App.3d 702
    , 710.)
    5
    the application to the public entity under . . . section 911.4 was made within a reasonable
    time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action, and one of the other
    four requirements listed in . . . section 946.6, subdivision (c) is met.” (Munoz v. State of
    California (1995) 
    33 Cal.App.4th 1767
    , 1777.) One of the requirements is that “[t]he
    failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
    neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of
    the claim.” (§ 946.6, subd. (c)(1).) “In determining whether relief is warranted, the court
    will consider the petition, any affidavits submitted in support of or in opposition to the
    petition, and any other evidence presented at the hearing.” (Munoz, supra, at pp. 1777-
    1778; see § 946.6, subd. (e).)
    B.     Standard of Review
    “The decision to grant or deny a petition seeking relief under section 946.6 is
    within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal except
    for an abuse of discretion.” (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 
    42 Cal.3d 270
    , 275.) “Abuse of discretion is shown where uncontradicted evidence or
    affidavits of the petitioner establish adequate cause for relief.” (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983)
    
    35 Cal.3d 427
    , 435.) The remedial policies underlying section 946.6 “are ‘that wherever
    possible cases be heard on their merits, and any doubts which may exist should be
    resolved in favor of the application.’ [Citation.] Thus, ‘[a]n appellate court will be more
    rigorous in examining the denial of such relief than its allowance.’ ” (Ebersol, supra, at
    p. 435.) “[T]his does not mean relief . . . should be granted casually” or that we may
    substitute our own judgment for the function of the superior court. (Munoz v. State of
    California, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1783-1784.) “It is not the purpose of remedial
    statutes to grant relief from defaults which are the result of inexcusable neglect of parties
    or their attorneys in the performance of the latter’s obligation to their clients.” (Tammen
    v. San Diego County (1967) 
    66 Cal.2d 468
    , 478.)
    6
    C.     A Reasonably Prudent Person Would Have Submitted A Timely Claim to the
    District
    Wood argues she made “a sufficient showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
    and excusable neglect.” Further, she contends the superior court abused its discretion by
    ignoring her uncontradicted evidence and imputing knowledge to counsel based on the
    notice pertaining to the Mosquito Fire Protection District. We disagree.
    “Relief on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is
    available only on a showing that the claimant’s failure to timely present a claim was
    reasonable when tested by the objective ‘reasonably prudent person’ standard.”
    (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 
    82 Cal.App.4th 1288
    , 1293.) In
    other words, “the court inquires whether ‘a reasonably prudent person under the same or
    similar circumstances’ might have made the same error.” (Bettencourt v. Los Rios
    Community College Dist., supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 276.) “A petitioner or counsel for a
    petitioner must show more than the mere failure to discover a fact until too late”; instead,
    the party seeking relief must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that in the
    exercise of reasonable diligence he or she did not discover it. (Munoz v. State of
    California, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1783.) The superior court’s conclusion was based
    on its assessment of the totality of the evidence, and it is Wood who disregards the
    evidence that is not in her favor.
    The District submitted evidence that contradicted Wood’s counsel’s version of
    events and demonstrated a lack of diligence under the circumstances. In March 2018,
    Wood’s counsel requested a copy of Wood’s personnel file from the District itself. The
    documents Wood cites from that file are consistent with the District’s evidence that it
    utilizes the County of El Dorado’s Auditors & Treasurers Office for its accounting,
    accounts receivable, payable, and payroll. While checks from the County are used,
    employees are paid by the District. Indeed, the District’s fire chief declared that in
    training her replacement, Wood explained that she was hired by the District and all
    7
    employee compensation and benefits come from the District alone. Wood did not
    effectively rebut this evidence. Therefore, the superior court concluded it was
    “established by the evidence before the court . . . that [Wood] herself was well aware that
    the District was a separate public entity with a separate budget, payroll, and benefits,
    even though the checks were generated by the County.”
    Wood’s attorney initially declared she had practiced law in El Dorado County for
    20 years and, “I personally, have submitted multiple claims to El Dorado County for
    County employees as well as other small fire districts. Each of these claims was
    submitted directly to and processed by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors and
    its risk manager. . . . For a recent example, my office currently handles a case involving
    a claim against Mosquito Fire Protection District. This claim was submitted to the
    County Board of Supervisors prior to Ms. Wood’s claim and processed by the County
    directly. Thus, it was my belief that Ms. Wood’s government tort claim was being
    presented to the proper responsible municipal entity.”
    In contrast, the County’s risk manager declared that he prepared the notices of
    rejection regarding the Mosquito Fire Protection District and this proceeding, and that he
    reviewed the claims Wood’s counsel has submitted to the County and is “unaware of any
    other government claims which were filed by [Wood’s counsel] with the County against
    any non-county entity.” Thus, Wood’s counsel’s initial declaration was contradicted by
    the District’s evidence.
    At a minimum, the District’s evidence demonstrates Wood’s counsel should have
    done more to discern the relationship between the District and the County. Had she done
    so, statutory law provides that all claims against the District “shall be audited, allowed,
    and paid by order of the district board.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 13903, subd. (b).) The
    superior court explained “[t]his legal authority is in the Fire Protection District Law of
    1987 [(Health & Saf. Code, 13800 et seq.)] and readily available to attorneys who
    research the law related to Fire Protection Districts.” “When there is a readily available
    8
    source of information from which the potential liability of a government entity may be
    discovered, a failure to use that source is deemed inexcusable.” (Department of Water &
    Power, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294.) Wood does not acknowledge or address this
    failure to research the relevant law.
    Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude the superior court abused its
    discretion in determining Wood did not establish grounds for relief by a preponderance of
    the evidence. Indeed, we must agree with the trial court’s conclusion that a reasonably
    prudent person would have submitted a claim to the District within the statutory period.
    D.      Alleged Bias
    Wood asserts the superior court judge who heard her petition should have recused
    herself under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. Specifically, Wood alleges there is
    an appearance of bias based on the judge’s recusal, eight months after ruling on her
    petition, from the Mosquito Fire Protection District case.4 (See Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1,
    subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii) [“A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that
    the judge would be able to be impartial”].) Such an argument must be first raised in the
    superior court. (Kern County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Camacho (2012) 
    209 Cal.App.4th 1028
    , 1038; see Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (c)(1).) Further, a statutory
    claim that a judge was disqualified for bias under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1
    can be raised in an appellate court only by writ; it cannot be raised on appeal. (Code Civ.
    Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d); Clary v. City of Crescent City (2017) 
    11 Cal.App.5th 274
    , 300.)
    Thus, we must reject Wood’s assertion of bias as it is not properly before us.
    4   We previously denied Wood’s request for judicial notice of this recusal.
    9
    III. DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed. The Pioneer Fire Protection District shall recover its costs
    on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (2).).
    /S/
    RENNER, J.
    We concur:
    /S/
    BLEASE, Acting P. J.
    /S/
    ROBIE, J.
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C089712

Filed Date: 10/26/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/26/2021