(a)When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.
(b)The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application.
(c)In computing the one-year period under subdivision (b), the following shall apply:
(1)The time during which the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss as a minor shall be counted, but the time during which he or she is mentally incapacitated and does not have a guardian or conservator of his or her person shall not be counted.
(2)The time shall not be counted during which the person is detained or adjudged to be a dependent child of the juvenile court under the Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), if both of the following conditions exist:
(A)The person is in the custody and control of an agency of the public entity to which a claim is to be presented.
(B)The public entity or its agency having custody and control of the minor is required by statute or other law to make a report of injury, abuse, or neglect to either the juvenile court or the minor’s attorney, and that entity or its agency fails to make this report within the time required by the statute or other enactment, with this time period to commence on the date on which the public entity or its agency becomes aware of the injury, neglect, or abuse. In circumstances where the public entity or its agency makes a late report, the claim period shall be tolled for the period of the delay caused by the failure to make a timely report.
(3)The time shall not be counted during which a minor is adjudged to be a dependent child of the juvenile court under the Arnold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), if the minor is without a guardian ad litem or conservator for purposes of filing civil actions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
94
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case:
Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1, 400 P.3d 372 (Cal. 2017).
Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1, 400 P.3d 372 (Cal. 2017).
· cites it 2× “) A plaintiff may apply for leave to present a late claim ( Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a) ), but only if the application is presented "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action.”
CURTIS T. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 123 Cal. App. 4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (c)(1).) Division Three found the late-claim application was timely filed because until the minors had a parent or guardian legally able to represent their interests, the one-year late-claim period was tolled.”
Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The central issue in this case is whether the minors' tort claims against the County were tolled by virtue of the juvenile court's failure to appoint a guardian ad litem despite the fact that it appointed independent counsel to pursue such claims on their behalf.”
Ovando v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 159 Cal. App. 4th 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Application to Present a Late Claim and Petition for Relief from the Claim Presentation Requirement Ovando applied to the county on October 12, 1999, for leave to present a late government claim (Gov. Code, § 911.4) arising from his medical treatment in a county hospital, the…”
V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 139 Cal. App. 4th 499 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “2) nor applied for leave to file a late claim within one year of accrual (Gov. Code, § 911.4). 2 In her opposition to the demurrer, V.”
Gutierrez v. Mofid, 705 P.2d 886 (Cal. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The wisdom of that policy applies to both "discovery" and "absolute" statutes of limitations, and we adhere to it. [3] Even the government claim statute provides that a claim is absolutely barred if not presented to the agency within one year after "accrual of the cause of…”
Roberts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 175 Cal. App. 4th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “(Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (c).) 2 Thereafter, plaintiff brought her lawsuit in compliance with Government Code section 945.”
Munoz v. State of California, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1767 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “(Gov. Code, §911.4, subd. (a).) If the public entity denies the application, Government Code section 946.”
Le Mere v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist., 35 Cal. App. 5th 237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
“( Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) If the public entity denies the application, Government Code section 946.”
Murphy v. Merzbacher, 697 A.2d 861 (Md. 1997).
· cites it 2× “4(b) (West 1989). Any claims accruing in favor of a minor against a public entity must be made in writing within 100 days of the date the action accrues.”
Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
“” Cal. Gov.Code § 911.4. The CTCA’s six-month limitations period applies to causes of action for death, personal injury, or injury to personal property.”
Cal. Government Code § 911.4(a): 4 cases
Cal. Government Code § 911.4(b): 6 cases
Murphy v. Merzbacher, 697 A.2d 861 (Md. 1997).
“4(b) (West 1989). Any claims accruing in favor of a minor against a public entity must be made in writing within 100 days of the date the action accrues.”
Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“The central issue in this case is whether the minors' tort claims against the County were tolled by virtue of the juvenile court's failure to appoint a guardian ad litem despite the fact that it appointed independent counsel to pursue such claims on their behalf.”
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.