Harland v. City of West Hollywood

── Harland v. City of West Hollywood ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/2/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT MICHELLE HARLAND, B343375 Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. v. 23SMCV01549, 24SMCV00872 CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Jay Ford III, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of David Azizi and David Azizi; The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wesierski & Zurek, David M. Ferrante-Alan and Stephanie H. Hsieh; Pollak, Vida & Barer, Daniel P. Barer and Karen M. Stepanyan for Defendant and Respondent. ____________________ The purpose of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) is to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances. (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 838.) Taxpayers pay successful claims against the government, and taxpayers and voters have a powerful interest in managing their government’s purse. The aim of the Act is to give public entities enough information to enable them to investigate claims properly and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 991 (DiCampli-Mintz).) Two main rules govern. First, the claimant must present their personal injury claims against a public entity to that entity within six months of sustaining the injury. (Gov. Code §§ 911.2(a), 915.) Second, the claimant cannot sue the public entity unless and until they have complied with the first requirement, and that entity has either outright denied the claim or failed to act upon the claim within 45 days. (Gov. Code §§ 945.4, 912.4(a).) We call these rules as Act’s claim presentation requirements. (See, e.g. DiCampli-Mintz, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 994; City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 737 (Stockton); State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 (Bodde); Malear v. State of California (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 213, 217 (Malear); Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211, 219 (Lowry); Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 246 (Le Mere); Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374 (Gong).) There are exceptions to the claim presentation requirements, but those exceptions do not apply to Michelle Harland’s case against the City of West Hollywood. On October 8, 2022, Harland tripped and fell while walking near 8228 Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. 2  On April 5, 2023—two days shy of the six-month deadline— Harland’s counsel mailed a claim for damages to the City. Harland claimed she suffered various physical injuries and emotional distress as a result of the City’s failure to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition. Two days later—on April 7, 2023—Harland filed suit against the City in the trial court. In her complaint, Harland alleged that before filing suit, she “presented a claim to [the City] . . . [and] believes in good faith that these claims have been denied, or have not been acted upon, acknowledged, or responded to in any way, or will be denied in due course.” The City did not receive Harland’s mailed claim until April 10, 2023. It did not receive her complaint until April 25, 2023. On May 22, 2023, the City demurred to Harland’s complaint, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim because Harland failed to comply with the Act’s claim presentation requirements. That same day, Harland served her first amended complaint, alleging she submitted he