FOLLOW US

By Samuel A. Lopez, Legal Analyst and Journalist, USA Herald

[SACRAMENTO, CA] - Yesterday, I brought you the story of an unscrupulous Sacramento landlord sentenced to 12 years in prison for egregious abuses, shining a harsh light on the Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) – Section 8, for what seems like, at minimum, a lack of oversight in the screening and investigating of participating landlords.

And let's not forget, this saga unfolds in Governor Gavin Newsom's home state. As the head of California, Newsom's administration oversees entities like SHRA, which are meant to protect and serve the public, especially in low-income housing matters. Yet, the ongoing issues with SHRA highlight a broader systemic problem within state governance.

If Newsom's vision for California includes safeguarding its citizens from unscrupulous landlords and ensuring accountability from public agencies, then cases like Janis v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency should serve as a stark reminder. It's time for his administration to push for reforms, ensuring agencies like SHRA are not just bystanders but active guardians of tenant rights, or else the oversight failures continue to reflect poorly on his leadership.

Today, we’re reporting on the case of: Janis v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency.

Imagine you're riding your bike, enjoying a Sacramento afternoon, when suddenly, a car slams into you. You're injured, and it turns out the driver works for SHRA. You think, "I'll sue, get justice." But here's the catch: suing a state entity like SHRA isn't as simple as filing a complaint.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of how an overlooked step in the legal and claims process, can derail an entire case. While the issues at hand stemmed from a bicycle vs car crash, and a clerical error, this case also sheds light on the potential challenges that tenants and other individuals may face when holding public entities accountable.

There's a critical step most people—and even some lawyers—miss. Miss it, and your case is dead in the water. That's exactly what happened to Lyle Janis, and I'm here to break it down so you don't make the same mistake.

• The Hidden Trap of Government Claims: Suing a state entity like SHRA requires filing a written claim first [not a lawsuit]—miss this, and your case is doomed, no matter how strong your evidence.
• Janis' Misstep Could Be Yours: Janis' lawyer had the evidence but failed to act in time, a mistake that cost him his shot at justice. Learn from this to protect yourself.

Let me paint the picture - September 21, 2021. Lyle Janis is cruising on his bike in Sacramento when Wilfredo Buenafe, driving an SHRA-owned vehicle, allegedly blows through a stop sign and crashes into him. Janis is injured—pain, medical bills, the works. He hires a lawyer, thinking SHRA should pay for their driver's negligence.

The traffic collision report, delivered to his lawyer's office in December 2021, clearly shows SHRA's involvement. But here's where it goes wrong: his lawyer's secretary fails to calendar the claim deadline, and Janis misses the six-month window to file a claim under California's Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 945.4).

Janis tries to fix it, filing for late claim relief, but the court says no. Why? His lawyer wasn't diligent. She had the report for months but never followed up. The court ruled this wasn't "excusable neglect" under § 946.6. Janis' case was dismissed, and SHRA walked away unscathed.

Now, let's connect the dots. Imagine you're renting from a landlord in a SHRA-subsidized property. They're abusive, neglecting repairs, endangering tenant safety, and maybe even one of the landlords’ resorts to using physical violence against a tenant, causing great bodily injury.

You decide to sue SHRA for failing to oversee them, and for other negligent actions that precipitated the harm or injury caused by the landlord. But, if you don't file a written claim first, your case is toast—just like Janis'. This isn't just legal jargon; it's a lifeline. Knowing this could save you from losing your shot at justice.

Janis' mistake was relying on his lawyer, who dropped the ball. But here's the thing - you can't afford to assume your lawyer knows this obscure rule. If you're suing a state entity, you must file a written claim within six months of the injury (Gov. Code § 911.2). Miss it? You can ask for late claim relief, but only if your delay was due to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" (§ 946.6). Janis' lawyer argued it was a "calendaring mistake," but the court said, "Not good enough. You had the report; you should've acted."

Let's get real - most people don't know this rule exists. Even some lawyers mess it up. If you want to sue SHRA or any state entity for money damages, you must file a written claim first. It's not optional. Under § 945.4, you can't file a lawsuit until the claim is presented and either acted on or rejected by the agency. Skip this, and your case is dead—no matter how strong your evidence.

Janis' lawyer launched straight into a lawsuit, but that was the wrong move. She needed to file a claim by March 21, 2022. She missed it, and her late claim application was denied. The court said her neglect wasn't excusable because she had the report for months. This is a wake-up call: if you're in this situation, don't assume your lawyer knows the drill. Ask them, "Have you filed the claim? Are we on time?"

Let's say you miss the six-month window. What now? You can file for late claim relief under § 911.4, but you need to show your delay was due to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" (§ 946.6). If the agency denies your late claim, you can petition the court for relief. But here's the catch: the court will scrutinize your diligence. Janis' lawyer failed because she didn't follow up on the report.

What if you didn't discover the harm until later? The clock starts when you knew or should've known about the injury (§ 911.2). If you can prove delayed discovery, you might get relief. But you need evidence—medical records, witness statements, something concrete. Janis didn't have that, and it cost him.

For those of us who might one day find ourselves in Janis’s situation, it’s important to remember that filing claims against the State or State-run entities, is more complicated than it may seem. The process involves not only proving the merits of your case but also adhering to procedural requirements that could ultimately determine whether your case gets heard.

Draft Claim for Janis: A Moot Exercise

This is a basic, bare-bones claim for Janis that complies with §945.4. This is moot, but it shows the minimum of what Janis should've or could’ve done.

Claim Against Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

Pursuant to Gov. Code §§ 910, 945.4