Failure to Comply with Claims Presentation Requirement Cannot be Cured After Lawsuit is Served on a Public Entity

In a published opinion issued on June 2, 2026, the Second Appellate District affirmed the importance of the Government Claims Act’s claim presentation requirement. The Court held that a plaintiff’s failure to present the claim to the public entity before filing and serving a lawsuit was a fatal defect that could not be cured.

Harland v. City of West Hollywood, B343375, involved a slip and fall plaintiff who mailed a government claim to the City and, just two days later, filed a lawsuit against the City. Fifteen days after the City received the claim, and before the City denied the claim, the plaintiff served the lawsuit on the City. Recognizing that the suit was filed prematurely, the plaintiff tried to cure the defect after the claim had been denied by first amending the complaint, and then dismissing the complaint to re-file as a new case.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the claims presentation requirement before initially filing and serving the complaint on the City was fatal to her claim, and could not be cured. Not only did the Court lay out a bright line rule, but it provided powerful language on the purpose and importance of the claims presentation requirement: claim presentation “ensures public entities get sufficient information to investigate claims without the expense of litigation” and that function is defeated when a plaintiff prematurely files suit. Harland reinforces the importance of public entities weighing any claim presentation defense as part of an initial litigation evaluation. As the Court succinctly put it, “[t]ime spent on litigation is gone forever and can never be recovered.”

As litigation costs continue to rise, Harland gives public entities and their counsel a clear mandate — evaluate claim presentation compliance at the outset of every tort matter, because it can be the difference between quick resolution and protracted litigation.