In Harland v. City of West Hollywood, published June 2, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 affirmed dismissal of the action after demurrer. The plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell due to a sidewalk condition. Two days before the six-month claim-presentation period expired, plaintiff’s counsel mailed a claim for damages to the dfefendent city. Two days later, she filed suit against the city. The city did not receive the claim until after suit was filed. It received service of the complaint 20 days after the claim was presented. The city demurred to the complaint, on the ground that the plaintiff had violated Government Code section 945.4 by failing to wait until the claim was acted upon, or deemed to have been denied 45 days after presentation, before filing suit. The trial court overruled the demurrer, but commented that it would have granted a summary judgment motion based on the complaint’s prematurity. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit, and filed a new one. The second lawsuit’s complaint was virtually identical to the first lawsuit’s complaint, except that it alleged that the city had rejected her claim. The second lawsuit was filed within six months of the city’s rejection of the claim. The trial court sustained the city’s demurrer to the second complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s initial failure to comply with the Government Claims Act was a complete bar to her action, and that dismissing the action and refiling it did not cure her failure to comply with the Act.
The appellate court agreed. Satisfying the Act’s claim-presentation requirements is a condition precedent to a tort action. The claims presentation requirements ensures public entities get sufficient information to investigate claims without the expense of litigation. Suing the public entity before the claim is presented–or before a presented claim is acted upon or the time to act upon it expires–defeats this purpose. The plaintiff’s premature filing of her first lawsuit violated the Act. She deprived the city of the opportunity to investigate her claim before forcing it into litigation with her.
Pollak, Vida & Barer represented the city on appeal in this action.
Leave a Reply