Filing Late Government Claims (Tort Claims) in California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Generally government claims for personal injury and personal property damage are due with a public entity within six months of an incident, with some notable exceptions.

However, if a claimant fails to file a government claim within the sixth months, there is a procedure to file a late claim.

(a) When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.

(b) The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application.

(c) In computing the one-year period under subdivision (b), the following shall apply:

(1) The time during which the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss as a minor shall be counted, but the time during which he or she is mentally incapacitated and does not have a guardian or conservator of his or her person shall not be counted.

(2) The time shall not be counted during which the person is detained or adjudged to be a dependent child of the juvenile court under the Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), if both of the following conditions exist:

(A) The person is in the custody and control of an agency of the public entity to which a claim is to be presented.

(B) The public entity or its agency having custody and control of the minor is required by statute or other law to make a report of injury, abuse, or neglect to either the juvenile court or the minor’s attorney, and that entity or its agency fails to make this report within the time required by the statute or other enactment, with this time period to commence on the date on which the public entity or its agency becomes aware of the injury, neglect, or abuse. In circumstances where the public entity or its agency makes a late report, the claim period shall be tolled for the period of the delay caused by the failure to make a timely report.

(3) The time shall not be counted during which a minor is adjudged to be a dependent child of the juvenile court under the Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), if the minor is without a guardian ad litem or conservator for purposes of filing civil actions. California Government Code section 911.4.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

Downtown Redlands and Walkability

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

When I moved from West Redlands to Downtown Redlands, I found that it was much easier to walk to lunch.  The Walk Score is listed as

84 Very Walkable

Most errands can be accomplished on foot.

Today, on a particularly clear 68 degree day, I was able to walk from 300 E. State Street to the Citrus Village Shopping Center.  By contrast, my old address had a Walk Score of 48 (Car Dependent). Even though I would walk when the weather was nice, it had a lot of bad or non-existent sidewalk, a lack of marked pedestrian crossings, and since the start of the Alabama widening, a complete nightmare.

Putting aside debates about sustainability, I have a personal preference to walk around a downtown like Redlands’ downtown because I can patronize local businesses with ease. You cannot truly know a City until you have been able to walk it a ground level.

Also, when a business neighborhood, like downtown Redlands is walkable, it allows you to park once and visit a variety of stores, restaurants, or businesses without having to move your car.

Copyright 2014 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

“This testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.”

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

[Note this blog post refers to superseded law.  It is kept only to allow historical permalink to keep active.]

In California, the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to attorney conduct.  In particular, attorneys should not guarantee, warranty or predict an outcome.

The standards adopted by the State Bar of California pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1-400 prohibits, in pertinent part:

“(1) A “communication” which contains guarantees, warranties, or predictions regarding the result of the representation.

(2) A “communication” which contains testimonials about or endorsements of a member unless such communication also contains an express disclaimer such as “this testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.”

Even if this was not part of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it would be a very bad idea to promise clients anything.  In my written fee agreements, which are based off the models on the State Bar’s website, and in its book The California Guide to Opening and Managing a Law Office,  I use this language:

” 13. DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTEE. Nothing in this Agreement and nothing in Attorney’s statements to Client will be construed as a promise or guarantee about the outcome of this matter. Attorney makes no such promises or guarantees. There can be no assurance that Client will recover any sum or sums in this matter. Attorney’s comments about the outcome of this matter are expressions of opinion only. Client acknowledges that Attorney has made no promise or guarantees about the outcome.”

The original can be found on Page 139 of the 2008 edition of the California Guide to Opening and Managing a Law Office, published by the State Bar of California.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

New Address

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

You can always find Michael Reiter’s current contact information at calbar.ca.gov.

The Myth about Car Dealer Sales Tax in California.

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

You often hear people talking about how car dealers bring sales tax revenue to cities from the sale of vehicles.  While there is some truth to it, there are special rules for the allocation of a portion of the tax that discourages shoppers from choosing an out-of-town retailer with a lower sales tax rate.

Further, Government Code section 53084 has discouraged local entities from providing financial assistance, including sales tax rebates to car dealers and big box retailers that are in another jurisdiction: “. . . a local agency shall not provide any form of financial assistance to a vehicle dealer or big box retailer, or a business entity that sells or leases land to a vehicle dealer or big box retailer, that is relocating from the territorial jurisdiction of one local agency to the territorial jurisdiction of another local agency but within the same market area.”

Further, people think that all the sales tax revenue goes to a local agency, when just a portion of the sales tax goes to a local entity.  Of the 7.5 percent base rate in California, the Board of Equalization states:

“Local Tax” is the general term for sales and use taxes imposed under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax Law. The basic statewide sales and use tax rate is 7.50% and is divided as follows:

• 6.50% State

• 0.75% Local Jurisdiction (City or county of place of sale or use)

• 0.25% Local Transportation Fund (County of place of sale or use) [Emphasis added]

In addition to the “Local Tax,” many California local entities have special taxing districts which impose a sales and use tax by adding to the current 7.5 percent.  In the California Board of Equalization Publication 34, dated January 2013, entitled Motor Vehicle Dealers, Pages 28-29:

If you sell or lease a vehicle to a customer who registers the vehicle in a special tax district, you are considered “engaged in business” in the district. As a result, you must report and pay the applicable special district tax.
Examples:
You are located in Alameda County, where there are three districts, each funded by a 0.50 percent rate. You sell or lease a vehicle to a customer who will register the vehicle in the same county. You report and pay the standard statewide rate of 7.50 percent plus 1.50 percent for the three special tax districts in effect in the county, for a total rate of 9.00 percent.
You are located in Los Angeles County and sell a vehicle that will be registered in Kings County, where there are no special tax districts. You report and pay only the statewide rate of 7.50 percent.
You are located in Kern County and sell a vehicle that will be registered in Alameda County, where there are three special tax districts. As with the first example, you will report and pay tax at the total rate of 9.00 percent (the standard statewide rate of 7.50 percent plus 1.50 percent for the three districts).

Leases are a little different.  Revenue and Taxation Code section 7205.1 says that a California lessor, other than a new motor vehicle dealer or a leasing company, for a lease exceeding four months, the local tax is allocated from the California dealer’s sales location.

Certainly, even without certain sales tax revenue on sales, vehicle dealers are attractive to local California entities because they provide jobs, services for residents, and both local and special district taxes on parts, for example.  However, since motor vehicles are big ticket items, people mistakenly think that the special district taxes are based on the location of the dealer, when in California it is based on registration.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog.  You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2013 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

How To Use A Court Interpreter in San Bernardino Superior Court

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

As long-time readers know, I am a member of the Hon. Joseph B. Campbell American Inn of Court.  Last night was a monthly meeting, and the program was one of the best since I became a member in the earlier part of the last decade.  The program included a skit that showed how interpreters were used in a criminal trial, both with American Sign Language interpreters and Spanish interpreters.  When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, the court interpreters were invaluable in communicating with primarily monolingual Spanish speakers in code enforcement cases.  While the performers in the skit provided a great deal of information, here is some information derived from the hand outs:

How To Use a Court Interpreter

The interpreter is your voice in court.

So, it is important to . . .

Listen carefully to the interpreter.

Wait for the interpreter to finish talking before your answer.

Do not speak in English, even if you speak a little.  It is confusing for the judge.

Do not interrupt, even if someone in court says something bad about you.  You will get a chance to speak.

Take notes. If someone says something untrue, write it down.  Then when it is your turn to speak, you can tell the judge your side.

Source: How to Use a Court Interpreter, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, pamphlet in English and Spanish, undated.

Additionally, a handout with the title of the presentation, “Lost in Translation” dated January 2013 says:

Our guest Spanish Language Interpreters ask that we, as attorneys and judicial officers, always keep the following things in mind . . .

– Don’t speak fast.

– Don’t use humor or figures of speech. [Note: The examples given were, “you’re really in a pickle” or “bird of a different feather”]

– Don’t give the jury instruction on interpreters or modify it.

[Note: The interpreter referred to CALJIC Instruction 121 which reads:

“Some testimony may be given in <insert name or description of language other than English>. An interpreter will provide a translation for you at the time that the testimony is given. You must rely on the translation provided by the interpreter, even if you understand the language spoken by the witness. Do not retranslate any testimony for other jurors. If you believe the court interpreter translated testimony incorrectly, let me know immediately by writing a note and giving it to the (clerk/bailiff).”  The notes state: “The committee recommends that this instruction be given whenever testimony will be received with the assistance of an interpreter, though no case has held that the court has a sua sponte duty to give the instruction. The instruction may be given at the beginning of the case, when the person requiring translation testifies, or both, at the court’s discretion. If a transcript of a tape in a foreign language will be used, the court may modify this instruction. (See Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instructions, Criminal Cases, Instruction No. 2.8 (2003).) If the court chooses, the instruction may also be modified and given again at the end of the case, with all other instructions.”

The interpreter presenting strongly objected to the part of the instruction which states: “If you believe the court interpreter translated testimony incorrectly, let me know immediately by writing a note” undermined the certified interpreter’s training and experience and emphasized that the instruction was not mandatory, and that the judicial officer could leave that objectionable line out of the instruction.]

– Always speak directly. [Note: attorneys should speak to the witness, and the witness should answer the attorney.  Do not speak to the interpreter directly].

– Beware of false cognates.

– Spanish is 30% longer than English.

– The Only person who never stops speaking during proceedings is the interpreter.

The American Sign Language interpreters said that they are required to provide a translation that included emotions such as shouting or sarcasm.  The Spanish language interpreters said that it was a matter of style for them to provide the translation in the same tone or volume.

Thank you to the leaders of the Inn for providing such an educational program, particularly Judge John Pacheco and Donna Connally, and to the court interpreters that helped us understand the process.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2013 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter is a partner with Cole Huber LLP

2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 402

Ontario, CA 91761

California Personal Injury Litigation and Proof of Service for Electronic Service

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Electronic service is a cost-effective manner of service, whether done in Federal cases with CM/ECF, or in California superior courts by stipulation, or in conjunction with electronic filing.  For California superior court cases, the Judicial Council has created an optional proof of service for electronic service, FORM POS-050/EFS-050, which needs to be used in conjunction with Form POS-o50(P).  However, if you follow the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(g) the practitioner does not need to use the optional Judicial Council form.

California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(g) requires the following information:

(1)Proof of electronic service may be by any of the methods provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a, except that the proof of service must state:

(A)The electronic service address of the person making the service, in addition to that person’s residence or business address;

(B)The date and time of the electronic service, instead of the date and place of deposit in the mail;

(C)The name and electronic service address of the person served, in place of that person’s name and address as shown on the envelope; and

(D)That the document was served electronically, in place of the statement that the envelope was sealed and deposited in the mail with postage fully prepaid.

(2)Proof of electronic service may be in electronic form and may be filed electronically with the court.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2013 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Garage Sales and Yard Sales (and permits) in the Cities of Highland, Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

People want to know how to get yard sale and garage sale permits in the East Valley, and they find this site because of this article about the City of San Bernardino’s yard sale ordinance.  Therefore, here is a chart to give a basic (but not complete) understanding of the rules and regulations regarding yard sales in the East Valley, here defined as the Cities of Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Highland, Redlands, Yucaipa and unincorporated San Bernardino County such as Muscoy, Mentone, Oak Glen, Devore, Arrowhead Suburban Farms, Devore Heights, and Del Rosa.  Per the City Clerk of Loma Linda, there is no yard sale ordinance in the City of Loma Linda as of 10/17/2012.  Note also that homeowners associations (HOAs) probably have additional restrictions (particularly East Highlands Ranch) which you should look into.

City/Unincorporated	Permit Required	Permit Cost	Where?	Duration
Colton	Yes	$2, except charity, nonprofit, religious	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Grand Terrace	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Highland	Yes	$7	Finance Department	3 d, 8am-8pm
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Redlands	Yes	$2.50	Treasurer	3 d or 2d each over consecutive weekends; 8 am-8pm
Rialto	Yes (Except Exemptions)	$5.40	Finance Department	3d, daylight
San Bernardino	No (anomoly regarding Estate Sales)	N/A	N/A	3d, daylight
Yucaipa	After 1st sale	$2.50 (sales 2-4)	Front Desk, City Hall	3d, 8am-8 pm
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	No (See SBCC section 84.25.030(e) unless exceed standards of 84.10.	N/A	N/A	3d, 8am-5 pm

City/Unincorporated	Frequency	Display	Signage	Exemptions	Ordinance	Codified At	Violation
Colton	1/quarter	Not in PROW	During, onsite	Court sales	Ord 1483 (1975); 0-3-1989 (1989)	Colton Municipal Code Chapter 5.45	Misdemeanor
Grand Terrace	2/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, unlit, 4ft area, 5 day limit, not on PROW, trees, fences, utility poles, removed at end	Court sales, charitable, nonprofit, religious	Ord 35 (1980)	Grand Terrace Municipal Code Chapter 5.40	Infraction
Highland	3/12 mo	Safety	1 onsite doublesided, 6 ft area, 5′ tall, 24 hours before until end.	Court sales	Ord 239 (1998)	Highland Municipal Code section 5.04.370	Infraction
Loma Linda	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	None	N/A	N/A
Redlands	3/12 mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale		Court sales	Prior Code secs 24001-10; Ord 2684 (2007), 2779 (2012),	Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 5.68	Infraction
Rialto	4/calendar yr only first weekend in March, June, September and December	Not in PROW, front or side yards	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4directional signs, prohibited in PROW, >864 sq in., with permission of property owner.	Nonprofits,	Ord 1416 (2008)	Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 5.69	Infraction; misdemeanor for <3/yr
San Bernardino	12/yr only on 3rd weekend of mo	Not in PROW, safety, only during sale	3 onsite unlit 24 hr prior until end; 4 Directional 2 sq ft  on private property w/consent	Estate sales as to frequency nonprofits as to frequency	Ord MC-1344 (2011)	San Bernardino Municipal Code Chapter 8.14	Infraction/misdemanor (woblette)
Yucaipa	4/12 mo	Not in PROW	1 onsite, not in PROW	Court sales	Ord 102 (1992)	Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 5.22	Infraction
Unincorporated San Bernardino County	4/yr	Not in PROW	2 onsite, 4ft area, 4 directional signs, prohibited in PROW, 864 sq in., w/permission of property owner.	None	Ord. 411 (2007)	San Bernardino County Code  Chapter 84.10	Infraction; misdemeanor for >3/yr

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog.  You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. BE SURE TO CHECK WITH THE INVOLVED CITIES FOR CURRENT LAW AND FEES.

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Fireworks in the City of San Bernardino, California (2012 Update)

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Happy Independence Day!

“Safe and Sane” fireworks are legally sold in the City of San Bernardino.  All fireworks are generally prohibited above the 210 Freeway in San Bernardino and near Perris Hill.  The City of San Bernardino Fire Department has a map and information about fireworks in this brochure.   Of course, all fireworks not approved by the State Fire Marshal are illegal in California.  Misusing legal fireworks (for example, making bottle rockets) is illegal in San Bernardino.

The San Bernardino Fire Department, particularly the Fire Prevention,  is out in force during the Fourth of July.  They have a variety of San Bernardino Municipal Code and California laws to enforce.  Even if you are not afraid of prosecution, fireworks are a leading cause of injury and property damage.

The San Bernardino City Fire Blog has some tips about fireworks.

A version of this post was published in 2011.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog.  You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law .

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Releases for Gross Negligence In the Context of Sports or Recreational Programs or Services are Void In California

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Most people have been asked to sign releases at various times, particularly for participation of their children in youth activities.  Are they valid?  They can be in many cases.  But in certain cases, they may be void if there is a public policy reason or statute.  For example, Civil Code section 1668 prohibits contracts which “have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”  Further, case law in California has prohibited releases of future gross negligence as being void against public policy.  City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th  747, 758.

There is an entire inquiry into whether a release is valid, which I won’t discuss here today.  Suffice it to say, you should consult with a personal injury attorney even if there is a release, because it is a technical question.  Most, if not all, personal injury attorneys provide a free consultation in personal injury cases.

In the City of San Barbara case, mentioned above, the mother of a developmentally disabled 14 year-old signed a release purporting to release the City of Santa Barbara and its employees from liability for “any negligent act” related to the child’s participation in a summer camp, run by the City, for developmentally disabled children.  The child drowned, and the parents filed suit.

We conclude . . . that an agreement made in the context of sports or recreational programs or services, purporting to release liability for future gross negligence, generally is unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Applying that general rule in the case now before us, we hold that the agreement, to the extent it purports to release liability for future gross negligence, violates public policy and is unenforceable.

My Torts Professor, Kenneth Manaster, drummed in our heads that “gross negligence” was not a term that we should bandy about, and of course he said it in 1995 or 1996, eleven years before City of Santa Barbara. There is a sort of “folk law” idea of what gross negligence is, perhaps informed by the law of other, non-California states.  In the City of Santa Barbara case, the California Supreme Court distinguishes between ordinary negligence and gross negligence:

We begin by defining the terms that underlie the issue presented. “Ordinary negligence”—an unintentional tort—consists of a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under  similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm. (See, e.g., Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863, 869, 118 P.2d 465 (Donnelly ).)

 “Gross negligence” long has been defined in California and other jurisdictions as either a “want of even scant care” or “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185–1186, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 552, 80 P.3d 656 (Eastburn ), and cases cited; accord, Colich & Sons v. Pacific Bell (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1240, 244 Cal.Rptr. 714 (Colich ); Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1052–1053, 236 Cal.Rptr. 526; see also, e.g., Prosser & Keeton, The Law  of Torts (5th ed.1984) § 34, pp. 211–212 (Prosser and Keeton); 57A Am.Jur.2d (2004) Negligence, § 227, p. 296.)  City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 747, 753-54, 161 P.3d 1095, 1099 (2007).

The procedural posture of the City of Santa Barbara was somewhat unusual.  The City moved for Summary Judgment, lost, and appealed immediately.  The case was set for trial, and then the City settled before the trial started for $2,000,000.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com