Author: Valeina Jack

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.

Whether your neighbors are adjacent businesses in a commercial complex, or the family who lives on the other side of the wall in your backyard, neighbor disputes can easily turn into the most stressful and cumbersome aspect of one’s life. Getting early guidance from an experienced attorney familiar with land use and real estate disputes may avoid some of the worst outcomes.

For those with investments in high-end residential, commercial, industrial, or mixed-use property, conflicts with adjacent owners can stall projects, impair value, and divert attention from the original goals. What begins as a simple boundary issue, construction problem, or access concern can quickly escalate into regulatory complaints, nuisance claims, or even litigation.

Land-Use and Real Property Disputes Have Commonalities

In California, disputes surrounding real property and land-use tend to cluster around a few recurring issues:

• Nuisance allegations: Noise, traffic, lighting, construction impacts, or disruptive business operations.
• Easements, CC&Rs, and recorded restrictions: Often overlooked limitations that constrain use, expansion, or operations.
• Encroachments: Walls, fences, retaining structures, or unpermitted improvements tied to assumed property lines.
• Trees and landscaping: Damage claims, view disputes, and statutory exposure.
• Access issues: Shared driveways, ingress and egress, or modified easements.
• New development opposition: Neighbor challenges aimed at delay or leverage.

Why Early Positioning Matters

Often, it is the first pitch that sets the stage for the entire game. An initial combative meeting or aggressive letter from counsel can derail any hope for amicable resolution of these issues, as such encounters can lead to emotions overtaking any subsequent rational positioning and decision making. Attorneys are often brought into the picture too late – when the situation has gotten so bad that there is no other choice. However, it is early legal positioning that limits legal/financial exposure and preserves optionality.

Disputes escalate fastest when assumptions replace thorough analysis, or when early responses are handled informally without a clear litigation strategy in mind. For example, an attorney can provide an early objective analysis of the legal issues, and what each party is likely to achieve if the dispute ends up in litigation. Having this analysis in hand (including potentially including third party experts such as surveyors, contractors, or experts) before dealing with the other side will inform the strategy for those initial negotiations.

When Disputes Escalate

Not every dispute can be resolved informally. Some are emotional. Others are strategic and tied to timelines, regulatory requirements, or enforceable restrictions. In either case, disciplined communication and a defensible strategy help preserve credibility, leverage, and long-term value.

Commercial and residential neighbor disputes are common, but they are manageable. A thoughtful early approach can limit disruption, preserve leverage, and keep objectives in focus.