IN RE: LING LA

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CPF25519341 - December 29, 2025 Hearing date: December 29, 2025 Case number: CPF25519341 Case title: IN RE: LING LA Case Number: | | CPF25519341 | Case Title: | | IN RE: LING LA | Court Date: | | 2025-12-29 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | PETITIONER LING LA'S PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 946.6 | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, December 29, 2025, Line 12, PETITIONER LING LA'S PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 946.6.

The court reissues the following tentative ruling that had been issued prior to the November 12, 2025 hearing: Petitioner Ling La's petition for relief under Government Code 946.6 is DENIED.

Respondents City and County of San Francisco et al's unopposed requests for judicial notice of exhibits A-G are granted. (See Cal. Evid. Code 452(d) & (h).) "Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable." (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 114.)

Petitioner filed her initial complaint in a separate case on September 26, 2024. (Def. RJN, Ex. B.) Respondents filed their answer on December 16, 2024. (Def. RJN, Ex. C.) Within Respondents' answer, they asserted that they were City employees, and Petitioner's reply the next day confirmed Petitioner's understanding that Respondents were City employees. (Def. RJN, Ex. C, p. 5 & Ex. D, p. 2.)

Petitioner submitted a government claim on September 11, 2025, and the claim was denied on September 15, 2025. (Def. RJN Ex. A, Ex. A.) Petitioner voluntarily dismissed her claim without prejudice on September 12, 2025. (Def. RJN, Ex. G.) Petitioner mailed an application for leave to present a late claim on September 19, 2025, and was denied on September 26, 2025. (La Decl. 15-16.) Petitioner filed the instant petition on October 2, 2025.

California Government Code section 945.4 requires plaintiffs bringing a lawsuit against a public entity to first present a written claim to the entity. The claim must be acted upon or rejected by the board before the plaintiff can bring their lawsuit seeking money or damages from the public entity. (Cal. Gov. Code section 945.4.)

A plaintiff must bring a personal injury claim against a public entity "not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action." (Cal. Gov. Code section 911.2(a).) If the plaintiff fails to bring the claim within six months, the plaintiff may apply for leave to present the claim "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action." (Cal. Gov. Code section 911.4.)

The calculation for when a cause of action begins to accrue is based on when the same accrual rules for that cause of action against non-public entities. (Cal. Gov. Code section 901.) For actions against health care providers, accrual begins "after the date or the injury" or "after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first." (CCP section 340.5.)

The injury is not necessarily the damaging act or the ultimate harm suffered for the purposes of this calculation. (Filosa v. Alagappan (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 772, 779.) Instead, it is " 'the point at which "appreciable harm" [is] first manifested.' " (Ibid. quoting Brewer v. Remington (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 14, 24.)

"Before a court may relieve a claimant from the statutory tort claim filing requirements, the claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence both that the 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." (Department of Water & Power v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1293, citing Shank v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 152, 156 (emphasis in original).) (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |