claim presentation requirement in California

2026In addition, the factual circumstances set forth in the written claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint; even if the claim were timely, the complaint is vulnerable to a demurrer if it alleges a factual basis for recovery which is not fairly reflected in the written claim.” ’ ” (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376 .) “[F]ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” (State of California v. Superior Court

2026The District relies on authority stating that, unlike the procedural defense of the statute of limitations, “the claim presentation requirement is a ‘state substantive limitation[ ] couched in procedural language.’ ” (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1240 7 (Bodde); accord Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208 (Shirk) [“Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is . . . ‘ “ ‘a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant’ ” ’ . . . and thus an element of the plaintiff's cause of act

2026The District relies on authority stating that, unlike the procedural defense of the statute of limitations, “the claim presentation requirement is a ‘state substantive limitation[ ] couched in procedural language.’ ” (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1240 7 (Bodde); accord Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208 (Shirk) [“Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is . . . ‘ “ ‘a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant’ ” ’ . . . and thus an element of the plaintiff's cause of act

2025In State of California v. Superior Court, our Supreme Court considered “whether failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with this claim presentation requirement subjects a complaint to a general demurrer.” (State of California v. Superior Court, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1237 .) The Court noted 13 its previous pronouncements holding the requirement to be a “condition precedent” to maintaining an action against a public entity and concluded that compliance with the requirement was therefore a “ ‘state substantive limitation[] couched in procedural language’ ” and “an element

2025(See, e.g., DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990 (DiCampli-Mintz); Shirk, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 209 ; State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1244 (Bodde); Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 839-841 (Williams).) We observe that the California Supreme Court’s characterization of the claim presentation requirement as an element of a cause of action has been in the context of explaining that the claim presentation requirement “ ‘ “is a condition precedent to a tort action and the failure to present the claim bars the action.” ’

2025(See, e.g., DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990 (DiCampli-Mintz); Shirk, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 209 ; State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1244 (Bodde); Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 839-841 (Williams).) We observe that the California Supreme Court’s characterization of the claim presentation requirement as an element of a cause of action has been in the context of explaining that the claim presentation requirement “ ‘ “is a condition precedent to a tort action and the failure to present the claim bars the action.” ’

2025Code, § 945.4; see id., § 905 [“claims for money or damages against local public entities” must be presented except in cases listed in statute]; Hart v. Alameda County (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 766, 778 (Hart) [“A suit for ‘money or damages’ includes all actions where the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, regardless whether the action is founded in ‘ “tort, contract or some other theory” ’ ”].)3 Ndizeye’s failure to allege 3 Ndizeye’s additional requests for declaratory and injunctive relief do not exempt his action from the claim presentation requirement. 10 compliance with the claim presenta

2025Code, § 945.4), and as a general rule, the Government Claims Act does not “impose any requirements for nonpecuniary actions, such as those seeking injunctive, specific or declaratory relief.” (Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1081 .) Some cases have held that the claim presentation requirement does not apply “where a damages claim is incidental to a claim for other relief, such as mandamus or injunctive relief.” (Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 [collecting and discussing cases].) Other cases have rejected this approach, poin

2026The claims statutes also “enable the public entity to engage in fiscal planning for potential liabilities and to avoid similar liabilities in the future.” ’ ” (DiCampli, at p. 991.) The claim presentation requirement “ ‘is based on a recognition of the special status of public entities, according them greater protections than nonpublic entity defendants, because unlike nonpublic defendants, public entities whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused harm will incur costs that must ultimately be borne by the taxpayers.’ ” (Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903, 908 .) b.

2025Code, § 911.2, added 6 by Stats. 1963, ch. 1715, § 1, p. 3376.)” (Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208 (Shirk), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903, 914 (Rubenstein).) The claim presentation requirement serves important public policy purposes: “ ‘ “Requiring a person allegedly harmed by a public entity to first present a claim to the entity, before seeking redress in court, affords the entity an opportunity to promptly remedy the condition giving rise to the injury, thus minimizing the risk of similar harm t

2025(See id. at pp. 989- 990; City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730 , 737-738 (City of Stockton).) Among these, Government Code section 945.4 sets forth a claim presentation requirement and provides that “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . .” Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (a), requires that a per

2025“The purpose of the claims statutes is not to prevent surprise, but ‘to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.’” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 738 .) Having agreed to have the trial court resolve the issues underlying monetary relief, the Water District cannot now argue that enforcing the claim presentation rule would advance the rule’s purpose.

2026(R.L., at p. 113, italics added, quoting Quigley, at p. 812.) One of these statutes was the legislation at issue in Chapman, which “eliminated the state’s procedural immunity to suit, thus opening the courts to the adjudication of the specified claims.” (Quigley, at p. 811, italics added, citing Denning v. State (1899) 123 Cal. 316, 319 [discussing February 1893 act at issue in Chapman]; see Chapman, supra, 104 Cal. at p. 693 ; R.L., at p. 113.) “Under the law existing at the time of the Government Claims Act’s enactment, a claim presentation requirement was viewed as the mechanism by which th

2026(R.L., at p. 113, italics added, quoting Quigley, at p. 812.) One of these statutes was the legislation at issue in Chapman, which “eliminated the state’s procedural immunity to suit, thus opening the courts to the adjudication of the specified claims.” (Quigley, at p. 811, italics added, citing Denning v. State (1899) 123 Cal. 316, 319 [discussing February 1893 act at issue in Chapman]; see Chapman, supra, 104 Cal. at p. 693 ; R.L., at p. 113.) “Under the law existing at the time of the Government Claims Act’s enactment, a claim presentation requirement was viewed as the mechanism by which th

2025(See Heron v. Riley, supra, 209 Cal. at p. 517 [stating general rule that legislature may not “create a liability against the state for any past acts of negligence on the part of its officers, agents or employees”]; Bourn v. Hart (1892) 93 Cal. 321, 327 [state statute enacted to pay $10,000 to a specific individual who had lost his right arm while working for the state violated gift clause because “the state was under no legal liability to compensate him for any loss which he may have sustained while thus in the discharge of his duties”]; id. at p. 328 [“A legislative appropriation made to an

2024(See also Heron v. Riley (1930) 209 Cal. 507, 517 [“The legislature has not attempted to create a liability against the state for any past acts of negligence on the part of its officers, agents or employees—something it could not do, and the doing of which would, in effect, be the making of a gift”].) Notably, the board of examiners presentation requirement in Chapman was perfectly analogous to the claim presentation requirement at issue in the present case: as explained by that Court, the challenged act providing the plaintiff a right to bring suit “contemplates that claims against the state

2025(See, e.g., Ngo v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 951 [a section 946.6 proceeding “is simply an avenue of relief . . . and is not designed to resolve the issue of actual compliance with the claim filing requirements”]; Rason v. 8 Santa Barbara City Housing Authority (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 817, 827 [where a “claimant disputes the public entity’s determination of untimeliness, the claimant must file a complaint for damages in order to raise this issue”].) Thus, Carmody may not have been able to argue in his section 946.6 petition that his claim was timely,3 which would mean he d

2022(See, e.g., Rason v. Santa Barbara City Housing Authority (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 817, 822 [“The petition was the improper vehicle to argue that the claim was timely.”].) 7 Although plaintiffs contend that the court erred by failing to explain its reasons for denying the petition, they do not cite any legal authority supporting that contention. 12 during that time.” (§ 946.6, subd. (c)(3), italics added; Draper v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 52 Cal.3d 502, 509 [“The subdivision is designed to assure both that the claimant was disabled during the filing period and that the disability was the reaso

2024“An order denying relief from the claim presentation requirement under Government Code section 946.6 is appealable.” (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 64 , citing Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435, fn. 8 .) The trial court’s denial of the petitions for relief resolved all claims between the city and plaintiffs in their individual capacities.

2024“An order denying relief from the claim presentation requirement under Government Code section 946.6 is appealable.” (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 64 , citing Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427, 435, fn. 8 .) The trial court’s denial of the petitions for relief resolved all claims between the city and plaintiffs in their individual capacities.

2004(Id. at p. 551.) We therefore reject defendants’ contention that failure to allege compliance establishes a jurisdictional defect. 8 (See, e.g., Hart v. County of Alameda (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 766, 781 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 ] [affirming demurrer because the plaintiff could not allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement]; Tapia v. County of San Bernardino (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 375, 387 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 ] [“ ‘Where compliance with the Tort Claims Act is required, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance, or the complaint is subject to general de

2004(Id. at p. 551.) We therefore reject defendants’ contention that failure to allege compliance establishes a jurisdictional defect. 8 (See, e.g., Hart v. County of Alameda (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 766, 781 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 ] [affirming demurrer because the plaintiff could not allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement]; Tapia v. County of San Bernardino (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 375, 387 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 ] [“ ‘Where compliance with the Tort Claims Act is required, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance, or the complaint is subject to general de

2008(State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243-1244 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 , 90 P.3d 116 ]; Wood v. Riverside General Hospital (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 8 ].) The plaintiff must prove compliance with the claim presentation requirement, or establish an excuse for noncompliance, to establish the defendant’s liability.

2008(State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243-1244 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 , 90 P.3d 116 ]; Wood v. Riverside General Hospital (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 8 ].) The plaintiff must prove compliance with the claim presentation requirement, or establish an excuse for noncompliance, to establish the defendant’s liability.

2004Hosp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 350, 355 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 20 ] [“Timely compliance with the claim filing requirements . . . must be pleaded in a complaint in order to state a cause of action”]; San Leandro Police Officers Assn. v. City of San Leandro (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 553, 559 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 856 ] [affirming judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiff could not allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement]; Miner v. Superior Court (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 597, 602 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 416 ] [issuing a writ of mandate commanding the trial court to sustain the petitioner’s demurrer because

2004Hosp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 350, 355 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 20 ] [“Timely compliance with the claim filing requirements . . . must be pleaded in a complaint in order to state a cause of action”]; San Leandro Police Officers Assn. v. City of San Leandro (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 553, 559 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 856 ] [affirming judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiff could not allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement]; Miner v. Superior Court (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 597, 602 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 416 ] [issuing a writ of mandate commanding the trial court to sustain the petitioner’s demurrer because

2024The Trial Court Did Not Err in Denying Plaintiffs’ Petitions for Relief From the Claim Presentation Requirement Under section 946.6, subdivision (c), a court must grant a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirement “if the claimant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence” that the application to the public entity to present a late claim under section 911.4 “was made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause of action, and one of the other four requirements listed in . . . section 946.6, subdivision (c) is met.” (Munoz v. State of Cal

2024Abuse of discretion is shown where uncontradicted evidence or affidavits of the plaintiff establish adequate cause for relief.” (Munoz, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1778 .) As set forth above, plaintiffs rely on the following two provisions in section 946.6 to excuse their failure to comply with the claim presentation requirement: (1) “The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim” (§ 946.6, subd. (c)(6)); and (2) “The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence,

2024(See Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270 (Bettencourt); Melde v. Reynolds (1900) 129 Cal. 308 (Melde).) 14 In Bettencourt, plaintiffs sought relief from the claim presentation requirement of Government Code section 945.4 after their counsel erroneously presented their tort claim to the State Board of Control, on the assumption that the employees of defendant Sacramento City College were state employees.

2024Plaintiffs Fail to Establish Excusable Neglect “As a general rule, a plaintiff must present a public entity with a timely written claim for damages before filing suit against it.” (J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 648, 652 (J.M.).) “A claim relating to a cause of action . . . for injury to person . . . [must] be presented . . . not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) If the injured party fails to file a timely claim, “a 6 written application” may be made to the public entity for leave to present such a claim af

2025(Phillips, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 707 ; Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare Dist. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 391 , 398.) Even if the trial court could not relieve plaintiff from the claim filing requirement, “there was no bar, jurisdictional or otherwise, to the trial court finding that he presented a timely claim.” (Simms, at p. 406.) 11 III Sufficiency of Complaint’s Allegations of Delayed Accrual Even though plaintiff was authorized to file this action against the Department due to the latter’s deemed rejection of his claim, he is still required to allege facts demonstrating or excusing co

2015Code, § 910.) The purpose of the claim presentation requirement is “ ‘to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 699, 705 .) A plaintiff filing an action on a claim must allege facts showing compliance with the claim presentation requirement or excusing compliance.

2025Code, § 911.2, added 6 by Stats. 1963, ch. 1715, § 1, p. 3376.)” (Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208 (Shirk), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903, 914 (Rubenstein).) The claim presentation requirement serves important public policy purposes: “ ‘ “Requiring a person allegedly harmed by a public entity to first present a claim to the entity, before seeking redress in court, affords the entity an opportunity to promptly remedy the condition giving rise to the injury, thus minimizing the risk of similar harm t

2017Writ review is proper because a "significant legal issue is presented, and the benefits of the claims act defense would be effectively lost if defendant[ ] [was] forced to go to trial." ( City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730 , 747, fn. 4, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 171 P.3d 20 ; see also State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 , 1245, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 , 90 P.3d 116 ["failure to allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a complaint to a general demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to con

2025(See Heron v. Riley, supra, 209 Cal. at p. 517 [stating general rule that legislature may not “create a liability against the state for any past acts of negligence on the part of its officers, agents or employees”]; Bourn v. Hart (1892) 93 Cal. 321, 327 [state statute enacted to pay $10,000 to a specific individual who had lost his right arm while working for the state violated gift clause because “the state was under no legal liability to compensate him for any loss which he may have sustained while thus in the discharge of his duties”]; id. at p. 328 [“A legislative appropriation made to an

2025(See Heron v. Riley, supra, 209 Cal. at p. 517 [stating general rule that legislature may not “create a liability against the state for any past acts of negligence on the part of its officers, agents or employees”]; Bourn v. Hart (1892) 93 Cal. 321, 327 [state statute enacted to pay $10,000 to a specific individual who had lost his right arm while working for the state violated gift clause because “the state was under no legal liability to compensate him for any loss which he may have sustained while thus in the discharge of his duties”]; id. at p. 328 [“A legislative appropriation made to an

2004(See Bell, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 449 ; Bahten, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d at p. 112; Savage, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d at p. 797.) Thus, these cases actually enforced the claim presentation requirement and did not excuse the plaintiffs from alleging facts showing or excusing compliance.

2004(See Bell, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 449 ; Bahten, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d at p. 112; Savage, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d at p. 797.) Thus, these cases actually enforced the claim presentation requirement and did not excuse the plaintiffs from alleging facts showing or excusing compliance.