California Supreme Court Takes Up Government-Claim Timing Dispute in West Hollywood Injury Case

According to the Court of Appeal opinion, Michelle Harland alleged that she was injured on October 8, 2022 after tripping and falling on a sidewalk near 8228 Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. She alleged that the City failed to maintain the sidewalk safely.

Those are allegations. Neither the Court of Appeal nor the California Supreme Court has adjudicated whether the City was negligent.

Harland's attorney mailed a government claim to the City on April 5, 2023. Two days later, on April 7, she filed a lawsuit against the City.

The City physically received the mailed claim on April 10 and was served with the lawsuit on April 25. Under Government Code section 915.2, a properly mailed claim is generally deemed presented when it is deposited in the mail, so April 10 was not necessarily the statutory presentation date. Either way, that sequence became the central procedural problem.⁷

They are separate steps.

California Government Code section 911.2 generally requires a claim relating to personal injury to be presented to the public entity within six months after the cause of action accrues, subject to statutory rules, exceptions, and late-claim procedures.⁴

But timely presenting the claim does not necessarily mean the claimant may immediately file suit. Government Code sections 912.4 and 945.4 generally give the public entity an opportunity to act on the claim before litigation begins.⁵

A public entity generally has 45 days to act on a properly presented claim, although statutory extensions and service rules can affect that period. The broader purpose is to give the public entity an opportunity to investigate and, where appropriate, resolve the claim before incurring litigation expense.

So there are two distinct timing questions. First: was the government claim presented on time? Second: was the lawsuit filed at the proper time after the claim process? A claimant can potentially create a problem at either stage.

In its June 2, 2026 decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of Harland's second lawsuit. Its reasoning was that Harland's first action had been filed and served before the statutory claim process was complete.³

The court concluded that the later rejection of the claim, voluntary dismissal of the first lawsuit, and filing of a new lawsuit did not cure the original defect under the circumstances presented.

But that decision is now under California Supreme Court review, so it should not be described as settled, binding California precedent.

The Court of Appeal distinguished an earlier case, Malear v. State of California (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 213. In Malear, a lawsuit was filed prematurely, but the original complaint had not been served before the claimant later filed an amended complaint after the government claim process was complete. The Malear court treated that as substantial compliance under the circumstances before it.

Harland was different. Her original complaint was served before she filed the later amended complaint. The Court of Appeal considered that distinction important because the public entity had already been forced into active litigation before the claim process had run its course.

Whether and how that reasoning should govern is now part of the broader dispute before the California Supreme Court.

The California Supreme Court's September 23, 2026 conference results state that the Court granted the petition for review in case S297247 and denied depublication.

That conference action is not a merits opinion or a ruling on which party should ultimately prevail.

Under California Rule of Court 8.1115(e), the opinion remains published and may generally be cited for potentially persuasive value, but it ordinarily has no binding or precedential effect while Supreme Court review is pending, unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise. Anyone citing it should note the grant of review.

As of publication, the Supreme Court has not issued an order formally narrowing the issues for review.

Claims involving sidewalks, public streets, parks, government buildings, public schools, buses or transit systems, public parking facilities, or other government property may implicate the Government Claims Act. Those claims often overlap with personal injury and premises-liability matters, and many arise in Los Angeles County civil cases involving cities like West Hollywood.

The basic lesson is not simply “you have six months to sue.” That can be misleading. The six-month period discussed in Harland generally concerns presentation of certain personal-injury claims to the public entity—not a universal six-month lawsuit deadline.

Different deadlines can apply to claim presentation, late-claim applications, rejection of the claim, filing the later lawsuit, and different types of claims or public entities.

For example, Government Code section 945.6 contains separate limitations rules governing certain lawsuits after written rejection of a claim. Accrual rules, statutory exceptions, and other procedural provisions can also change the analysis.⁶

No one should rely on a single universal deadline drawn from this article.