Los Angeles Unified School District v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.

DocketDescription: Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.; Notes: The petition for review is denied without prejudice to any claims that either party might raise on appeal from the final judgment. [S269690]

DocketDescription: Supreme Court order filed re:; Notes: The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including October 4, 2021, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied. [S269690]

DocketDescription: Service copy of petition for review received.; Notes: Supreme Court service copy re Petition for Review received July 16, 2021. Copy of Petitioner's Petition for Review filed 7/6/21.

DocketDescription: Record transmitted to Supreme Court electronically.

DispositionDescription: Order dismissing petition; Disposition Type: Final

DocketDescription: Case complete.

DocketDescription: Dismissal order filed.; Notes: THE COURT: We received a copy of the trial court's order dated May 6, 2021, stating that in response to the alternative writ of mandate issued by this court on April 29, 2021, it has vacated its order of March 3, 2021, granting real party in interest's petition for relief from the Government Code section 945.4 claim presentation requirements, and has issued a new order denying relief. We also received a purported return to the petition for writ of mandate, filed by real party in interest on May 18, 2021. Because the respondent court had previously vacated its order of March 3, 2021, thus complying with alternative (a) of the alternative writ of mandate entered by this court, real party in interest was not entitled to file a return in this matter. Because petitioner has been afforded the relief requested in the instant petition for extraordinary relief, the petition is dismissed as moot. The stay of proceedings entered by this court on April 29, 2021, is hereby lifted. Panel: Edmon, P. J., Lavin, J., and Egerton, J.

DocketDescription: Written return filed.; Notes: by Real Party in Interet Varna Carvajal

DocketDescription: Response filed:; Notes: Dear Justices of Division Three: Please see the enclosed minute order issued today by the trial court in response to the Court of Appeal?s April 29, 2021 Order. As reflected in the minute order, the trial court has complied with the alternative writ of mandate.

DocketDescription: Alternative writ or OSC issued.; Notes: ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE AND STAY ORDER TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES: The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed on April 1, 2021. Based on the record before this court, it appears the respondent court erred in granting real party in interest's petition for relief from Government Code claim presentation requirements, based on the court's conclusion that real party in interest had demonstrated both excusable neglect and mental incapacity to excuse the untimely filing of her claim against petitioner. (Barragan v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1384-1385 (Barragan).) "[E]very claimant is likely to be suffering from some degree of emotional upset, and it takes an exceptional showing for a claimant to establish that his or her disability reasonably prevented the taking of necessary steps." (Id. at p. 1385; italics added.) "Before a court may relieve a potential plaintiff from the claim requirement of [Government Code] section 945.4, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his [or her] 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." (Shank v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 152, 156.) Based on the above, and good cause appearing therefor, you are directed to: (a) vacate your March 3, 2021 order, granting real party in interest's petition for relief from Government Code claim presentation requirements, and issue a new order denying the petition, or (b) in the alternative, SHOW CAUSE before this court, in its courtroom at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, on a date and at a time to be determined, why you have not done so and why a peremptory writ of mandate requiring you to do so should not issue. If the respondent court elects to proceed under alternative (a) above - in the manner provided for in Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1247-1250 & fn. 10 - the respondent court is directed to transmit to this court a copy of the minute order reflecting its action on or before May 14, 2021. If the respondent court elects not to proceed under alternative (a) above, (1) real party in interest may serve and file a written return to the petition on or before May 18, 2021, and (2) petitioner may serve and file a traverse within 10 days after the return is filed. Further proceedings in this matter, other than those outlined in alternative (a), above, are hereby stayed, pending further order of this court. By order of this court. ATTEST my hand and the seal of this court this 29th day of April, 2021.Edmon, P.J. / Lavin, J. / Egerton, J.

DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: Petitioner's amended proof of service on RPI(s)

DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Volume 1 of 1

DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT