J.G. v. City of Paso Robles CA2/6, B301035

Background

Plaintiff J.G. alleges multiple sexual assaults, rape, stalking and threats by Paso Robles police Sergeant Christopher McGuire from December 2017 through April 2018, and that she feared reporting him because he threatened harm and removal of her children.
J.G. cooperated with a months-long criminal investigation by the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office; the DA declined to prosecute and McGuire later resigned.
J.G. did not file a government tort claim within the six‑month statutory period. In February 2019 her civil attorney served a late claim and request for leave to present a late claim under Gov. Code § 911.4; the City failed to respond and the claim was deemed denied.
J.G. petitioned the superior court under Gov. Code § 946.6 for relief from the claim presentation requirement, asserting excusable mistake/inadvertence/neglect due to trauma, threats and lack of legal advice; the trial court denied relief.
The court of appeal affirmed, finding the reasons offered did not satisfy the statutory standard for excusable mistake/inadvertence/neglect and that attorney ignorance is imputed to the client.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a § 946.6 petition challenge timeliness of a claim when claimant first sought leave under § 911.4?	Rason is distinguishable; J.G. challenged denial of her § 911.4 application via § 946.6.	§ 946.6 is proper to review denial of a § 911.4 application; timeliness was not disputed earlier.	Court: § 946.6 petition was appropriate here because J.G. had applied for leave under § 911.4 and then sought judicial relief after denial.
Did J.G.’s fear, trauma and delayed action constitute "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect"?	Trauma, threats, and fear of retaliation prevented timely filing; she waited until she felt safe and until the criminal investigation began.	Emotional reaction and fear alone do not show excusable neglect; claimant sought and had access to counsel during the relevant period.	Court: Not excusable neglect; no evidence trauma substantially interfered with daily functioning or prevented seeking legal advice; no medical declaration.
Is ignorance of the law or failure of the criminal attorney to advise of the six‑month claim period excusable neglect?	Her criminal attorney did not advise her of the civil claim deadline; she lacked civil‑litigation counsel earlier.	Ignorance of the law and attorney negligence are not excusable; attorney fault is imputed to client.	Court: Ignorance and counsel's failure to advise do not constitute excusable neglect; attorney negligence is imputed to J.G.
Must the "reason" presented to the public entity and to the court be the same?	J.G. offered related but expanded reasons in the § 946.6 petition (including feeling safe) beyond the § 911.4 application.	Statutory language and Lincoln Unified require the same reason be presented at both stages.	Court: The reason in § 911.4 and § 946.6 must align; J.G.'s expanded grounds were insufficient.

Key Cases Cited

Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist., 42 Cal.3d 270 (remedial construction of § 946.6; appellate review of discretionary denial)
Rason v. Santa Barbara City Housing Authority, 201 Cal.App.3d 817 (procedure for challenging timeliness of claims)
Lincoln Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.5th 1079 (the same "reason" must be offered to the public entity and the court)
Munoz v. State of California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767 (requirements for late‑claim applications)
Harrison v. County of Del Norte, 168 Cal.App.3d 1 (ignorance of the law is not excusable neglect)
Tammen v. County of San Diego, 66 Cal.2d 468 (attorney negligence is imputed to the client)
Greene v. State of California, 222 Cal.App.3d 117 (petition must show discovery of facts after filing period and reasonable diligence)
People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.App.4th 39 (trauma tolling requires substantial interference with daily function)