(a)When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after accrual of the cause of action is presented after such time without the application provided in Section 911.4, the board or other person designated by it may, at any time within 45 days after the claim is presented, give written notice to the person presenting the claim that the claim was not filed timely and that it is being returned without further action. The notice shall be in substantially the following form:
“The claim you presented to the (insert title of board or officer) on (indicate date) is being returned because it was not presented within six months after the event or occurrence as required by law. See Sections 901 and 911.2 of the Government Code. Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim.
Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to (name of public entity) for leave to present a late claim. See Sections 911.4 to 912.2, inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Government Code. Under some circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. See Section 911.6 of the Government Code.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.”
(b)Any defense as to the time limit for presenting a claim described in subdivision (a) is waived by failure to give the notice set forth in subdivision (a) within 45 days after the claim is presented, except that no notice need be given and no waiver shall result when the claim as presented fails to state either an address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent or an address of the claimant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
Trujillo v. City of Ontario, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
Trujillo v. City of Ontario, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Cal. Gov.Code § 911.3(a). 21 Failure to provide this notice to Plaintiff Ansman and the class waived Defendants’ statute of limitations defense.”
Kyles v. Baker, 72 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 4× “” Cal. Gov. Code § 911.3 (a). The statute directs that the written notice “shall be in substantially the following form”: The claim you presented to the (insert title of board or officer) on (indicate date) is being returned because it was not presented within six months after…”
City of Indus. v. City of Fillmore, 198 Cal. App. 4th 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“Government Code section 911.3, subdivision (a) states that the governing board of a local public entity may give written notice that a claim was not timely presented within six months after the accrual of the cause of action as required under Government Code section 911.”
Janis v. California State Lottery Comm'n, 68 Cal. App. 4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
“…a claim ... is waived by failure to give the notice . . . within 45 days after the claim is presented . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 911.3, subd. (b).)”
Roberts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 175 Cal. App. 4th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“(Gov. Code, § 911.3, subd. (a).) On April 17, 2007, plaintiff filed a petition in the trial court seeking relief from the Government Claims Act requirements pursuant to Government Code section 946.”
Cnty. of Alameda v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. App. 3d 1283 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “” (Gov. Code, §911.3, subd. (a).) “Any defense as to the time limit for presenting a claim .”
Weil v. Raisin City Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 1:21-cv-00500 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2021).
“First, Weil asserts 23 that Defendants waived their timeliness argument because they failed to give her notice of any 24 untimeliness, as required by California Government Code § 911.3. And second, Weil contends 25 that her government claim was timely presented under § 911.”
Chaudry v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 3:21-cv-01847 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2022).
“) On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff 5 mailed a timely response within one year of the alleged incident and asserted that the 6 Notice of Returned Claims was void for two reasons: 1) the notice did not have the name 7 and signature of the person supposed to have been designed by the…”
Anderson v. City of Pasadena, No. B333331 (Cal. Ct. App. July 18, 2025).
“(Gov. Code, § 911.3, subd. (b) [“Any defense as to the time limit for presenting a claim described in later than one year after the accrual of the cause of the cause of action.”
Crum v. Compton Unif. Sch. Dist., No. B246985 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2014).
“Appellant argued that respondents waived their right to assert noncompliance with the Act pursuant to Government Code section 911.3. Appellant also argued that she properly identified the protected speech and stated a cause of action under section 1983.”
Cal. Government Code § 911.3(a): 2 cases
Trujillo v. City of Ontario, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
“Cal. Gov.Code § 911.3(a). 21 Failure to provide this notice to Plaintiff Ansman and the class waived Defendants’ statute of limitations defense.”
Chaudry v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 3:21-cv-01847 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2022).
“) On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff 5 mailed a timely response within one year of the alleged incident and asserted that the 6 Notice of Returned Claims was void for two reasons: 1) the notice did not have the name 7 and signature of the person supposed to have been designed by the…”
Cal. Government Code § 911.3(b): 1 case
Trujillo v. City of Ontario, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
“Cal. Gov.Code § 911.3(a). 21 Failure to provide this notice to Plaintiff Ansman and the class waived Defendants’ statute of limitations defense.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.