Harland v. City of West Hollywood

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.