244 Cal. App. 4th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- City denied Dines's application for leave to file a late claim on May 8, 2014.
- Dines filed a petition for relief from the claims presentation requirements under Gov. Code § 946.6 on November 13, 2014.
- Trial court held the six-month period ran from denial and granted the petition, extending by five days under § 915.2(b).
- City challenged the order via writ of mandate, arguing § 946.6 six-month period begins at denial and § 915.2(b) extension does not apply.
- Appellate review is de novo on statutory construction; disposition: writ of mandate directing denial of petition.
- The central issue is when the six-month period under § 946.6 begins and whether § 915.2(b) extends it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does § 946.6's six-month period begin? | Dines: begins on denial date or notice date per Rason. | City: begins on denial date; § 915.2(b) extension inapplicable. | Begins on the denial date; five-day extension does not apply. |
| Does § 915.2(b) extend the § 946.6 period? | Extension applies to timing after mailed notices. | Extension does not apply to § 946.6 six-month period. | Five-day extension not applicable to § 946.6 period. |
| Is Rason controlling for timing of § 946.6? | Rason supports post-denial timing. | Rason pre-dates the 2002 amendment and is superseded for this context. | Rason remains persuasive; the six-month period begins at denial. |
| What is the effect of the 2002 and 2011 amendments to § 915.2 on § 946.6? | Amendments may extend notice periods. | Amendments exclude § 946.6 from the five-day extension. | Amendments do not apply to § 946.6's six-month clock. |
| What is the proper remedy? | Grant relief to proceed. | Petition untimely; deny petition. | Writ of mandate issued directing denial of petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rason v. Santa Barbara City Housing Authority, 201 Cal.App.3d 817 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd Div. 1988) (begins six-month period on denial, not notice; due process concerns noted)
- City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.App.4th 621 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd Div. 1993) (six-month period under § 946.6 runs from denial; timely filing required)
- D.C. v. Oakdale Joint Unified School Dist., 203 Cal.App.4th 1572 (Cal. App. Dist. 6th Div. 2012) (cites Rason; § 946.6 as a statute of limitations; starts at denial)