John Hesch, et al. v. County of Santa Barbara, et al.

Case Number

25CV01798

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition For Order Relieving Petitioners from The Claim-Filing Provisions Of Government Code Section 945.4

Tentative Ruling

For Petitioners John Hesch and Sheila Hesch: John R. Contos, Law Offices of John R. Contos

For Respondents County of Santa Barbara, Clerk of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, and Parks Division of Community Services: No appearances

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the hearing on the petition of John Hesch and Sheila Hesch for an order relieving Petitioners from the claim filing provisions of Government Code section 945.6 is continued to November 19, 2025. On or before October 10, 2025, Petitioners shall effect service of the petition, notice of the hearing on the petition, and copy of the Court’s ruling herein, on each of the Respondents named in the petition, in accordance with this ruling. Petitioners shall file a proof of service of the petition, the notice of hearing on the petition, and the Court’s ruling herein on or before October 24, 2025.

Background

On March 24, 2025, Petitioners John Hesch (John) and Sheila Hesch (Sheila) (collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition against Respondents the County of Santa Barbara (the County), the Clerk of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, and Parks Division of Community Services (collectively, Respondents.) In the petition, Petitioners request an order relieving them from the claim filing requirements of Government Code section 945.4, and allowing Petitioners’ claim to be adjudicated in Court. (Note: To avoid confusion due to common surnames, the Court will refer to Petitioners individually by their first names. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in the petition:

On September 17, 2023, John and Sheila, who is John’s wife, were visitors to the recreational areas surrounding Lake Cachuma, when John sustained serious injuries after John fell trying to reach the shoreline and the Mohawk Fishing Pier, using a poorly maintained trail near a designated parking area at the lake. (Pet., p. 2, ll. 4-7.) John was rendered unconscious at the scene of the accident for an unknown period of time and when he awakened, he was unable to move his arms or legs. (Pet., p. 2, ll. 21-23.) John called out to Sheila who dialed emergency services. (Pet., p. 2, l. 23.) John was airlifted to Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara where he was diagnosed with herniated discs, and a later diagnosis revealed that John will require laminectomy, foraminotomy, and discectomy. (Pet., p. 2, ll. 23-26.)

As a result of his injuries, John was placed on short term disability beginning on December 10, 2023, and long term disability beginning on December 20, 2024. (Pet., p. 2, ll. 27-28.)

On September 17, 2024, Petitioners presented to the “Board” an “Application for Leave to Present Late Claim” (the Application) under Government Code section 911.4. (Pet., p. 3, ll. 4-6; p. 4, ll. 1-4.) (Note: Though Petitioners allege that a copy of the Application is attached to the petition, that document is not attached to the Court’s copy.) The Application indicates that John sustained severe injuries which will require major orthopedic surgery and which caused John to be placed on short and long term disability. (Pet., p. 6, ll. 15-19.) As to Sheila’s claim, the Board was also made aware in the Application that Sheila was incapacitated with a brain tumor during all or some of the six-month claim period. (Pet., p. 6, ll. 25-27.)

On September 23, 2024, the Board of Supervisor provided notice (the Notice) of the denial of the Application and related claims. (Pet., p. 4, ll. 7-9.) (Note: Notwithstanding the allegations of the petition, the Notice is also not attached to the Court’s copy.) Although the Board could have taken 45 days or more to consider the Application, it issued its denial of the Application without citing any insufficiency, deficiency, or omission in the Application, including as to its timeliness. (Pet., p. 4, ll. 17-19; p. 5, ll. 12-14.)

Attached to the petition is a declaration of Petitioner’s counsel, John R. Contos (Contos), who states that he was contacted by Petitioners on September 16, 2024, and advised that they had just learned that there was a requirement to file a government tort claim. (Contos Decl., ¶ 2.) Contos agreed to obtain information from Petitioners and to do some quick research. (Contos Decl., ¶ 3.) Contos was able to assemble and serve both a government tort claim and the Application by September 17, 2024. (Ibid.) Contos received the Notice in the latter part of September 2024, and calendared the last day to file the present petition. (Contos Decl., ¶ 4.)

Contos asserts that at the time, he was undergoing medical complications and providing care to his wife who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer on New Year’s Day 2024, hospitalized through January 10, 2025, and who passed away on March 21, 2025. (Contos Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)

On March 25, 2025, Petitioners filed an errata to the petition. Attached to the errata is a copy of the Application and Notice further described above, and a proof of service. (Errata, Exhs. A [Application], B [Notice].) In the proof of service, Contos declares, under penalty of perjury, that on March 25, 2025, Contos served the petition by email on Madeleine Orr (Orr), who Contos identifies as a Liability Analyst at the County’s Risk Management office. (Errata at pdf p. 13.)

On August 29, 2025, Petitioners filed a notice (the Hearing Notice) of the hearing on the petition scheduled for September 24, 2025. In the Hearing Notice, Petitioners state that on April 28, 2025, Samantha Francis (Francis), who is a Liability and Insurance Manager in Risk Management, advised Contos by email that service copies must be sent to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County. (Aug. 29, 2025, Notice at p. 1, ll. 21-28 & p. 2, ll. 1-2.) The Hearing Notice includes a proof of service stating that on April 29, 2025, Contos served that notice, by mail, on the County’s Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and the County’s Executive Office.

The Court’s records reflect that the Respondents named in the petition and described above have not filed a response to the petition.

Analysis

Government Code section 946.6 requires that “[a] copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of hearing shall be served before the hearing as prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure on (1) the clerk or secretary or board of the local public entity, if the Respondent is a local public entity....” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (d).) Service of the petition must be “effected in the same manner as service of summons in order to give the Court jurisdiction to enter an order against the public entity.” (Thierfeldt v. Marin Hosp. Dist. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 186, 200.) Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq. sets forth the manner of service of a summons within this state.

The Court has no record showing that Petitioners have served the petition or the Hearing Notice on each of the Respondents named in the petition, in the manner set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq. Therefore, and for all reasons discussed above, the Court has not obtained jurisdiction over Respondents.

For all reasons discussed above, the Court will continue the hearing on the petition to permit Petitioners to effect valid and compliant service of the petition on each of the Respondents, in the manner set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 413.10 et seq., and Government Code section 946.6. The Court will also require Petitioners to serve each of the Respondents with an appropriate written notice of the hearing on the petition as required by Government Code section 946.6, and a copy of the Court’s ruling herein, and to file an appropriate proof of service of these documents.