California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Han v. City of Pomona, 37 Cal.App.4th 552, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 616 (Cal. App. 1995):
2 The trial court apparently did not believe plaintiff brought himself within the provisions of subdivision (c)(1) of section 946.6 because it stated, in part, in its minute order: "Plaintiff did not originally use diligence to obtain counsel. Thereafter, there is a lack of diligence in filing late claim." We cannot agree with the trial court. The record shows that the police incident which forms the basis of this matter occurred on September 26, 1989 and plaintiff sought legal assistance from his attorney "within days" of the date the one-year statute of limitations would run. The application for permission to file a late claim was filed with the defendant September 25, 1990. Since plaintiff's mistake of law was excusable under Viles, and since it would necessarily take his attorney some time to prepare an application to file with the defendant after being contacted by plaintiff "just days" prior to said filing, we find reasonable diligence in his filing his application with defendant. (Viles v. State of California, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 31-32, 56 Cal.Rptr. 666, 423 P.2d 818.) However, as discussed below, thereafter plaintiff's diligence came to an end.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.