Tackett

Tackett v. City of Huntington Beach

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 70·22 Cal. App. 4th 60·27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 133·94 Daily Journal DAR 1245·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 783
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1994G013027California1,926 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, J.

section 473, requiring a trial court to vacate a default, default judgment, or dismissal if the aggrieved party’s attorney submits a timely application for relief “in proper form, . . . accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,” apply to a motion under Government Code section 946.6 for relief from the claim-filing requirement under the Government Tort Claims Act? No. Alternatively, did the superior court abuse its discretion in concluding the petitioning party failed to show excusable neglect that would warrant relief from the Government Code’s tort claims filing requirement? Again, the answer is no.

I

Candice Amber Tackett tripped on a Huntington Beach sidewalk on January 3, 1991. She retained Attorney James A. Rainboldt three weeks later. He failed to file a claim with Huntington Beach within six months of the accident, as required by Government Code section 911.2. An application for leave to file a late claim was submitted on August 30. The application included a bald conclusion, devoid of elaboration, that “[t]he reason for the delay in presenting this claim is the mistake, inadvertence,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.