timely presentation claim in California

2023(See § 910.8 [public entity may notify claimant of defects in claim that does not substantially comply with §§ 910 and 910.2]; City of San Jose, supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 455-457 [discussing doctrine of substantial compliance with content requirements]; Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1052, 1060 [“ ‘The doctrine of substantial compliance is normally raised where a timely but deficient claim has been presented to the public entity.’ ”].)2 Strict 2 Most of the cases plaintiffs cite as part of their substantial compliance argument concerned the content requiremen

2021(City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 738 .) When a claim is not timely presented, a claimant may make a written application to the public entity for leave to present a late claim. (§ 911.4, subd. (a).) If the public entity denies that application, the claimant may then petition the superior court under section 946.6 for relief from the claim presentation requirements. (§ 946.6, subd. (a).) The court may grant relief only if the requirements of section 946.6 are met.

2013(See Lentz v. McMahon, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 401-402 [holding application of estoppel would not seriously undermine the interests represented by the statute of limitations to encourage the timely presentation of claim and prevent windfall benefits; "Estoppel against a county's assertion of purely procedural preconditions and limitations on benefits, when the county itself is responsible for the procedural default, will not defeat the underlying statutory policy of safeguarding accurate and orderly administration of the welfare system"]; McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 992-993.) V.

2013(See Lentz v. McMahon, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 401-402 [holding application of estoppel would not seriously undermine the interests represented by the statute of limitations to encourage the timely presentation of claim and prevent windfall benefits; "Estoppel against a county's assertion of purely procedural preconditions and limitations on benefits, when the county itself is responsible for the procedural default, will not defeat the underlying statutory policy of safeguarding accurate and orderly administration of the welfare system"]; McKnight, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pp. 992-993.) V.

1958There should be no distinction between injuries to property in cases of fraud and deceit, which are tortious acts, and injuries to property rights in other eases of tortious acts such as wrongful death.” (See *841 also Western Mortgage etc. Co. v. Gray, 215 Cal. 191 [ 8 P.2d 1016 , 80 A.L.R. 866 ].) In Casey v. Katz, 114 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 250 P.2d 291 ], an action for malicious prosecution of a battery action was held to be an “injury to property” under the terms of Probate Code, section 707.

1958There should be no distinction between injuries to property in cases of fraud and deceit, which are tortious acts, and injuries to property rights in other eases of tortious acts such as wrongful death.” (See *841 also Western Mortgage etc. Co. v. Gray, 215 Cal. 191 [ 8 P.2d 1016 , 80 A.L.R. 866 ].) In Casey v. Katz, 114 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 250 P.2d 291 ], an action for malicious prosecution of a battery action was held to be an “injury to property” under the terms of Probate Code, section 707.

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958Counsel have presented no authority squarely deciding whether such a claim as that before us constitutes an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 707, and accordingly has been forever barred by reason of appellant’s failure to make a timely presentation of her claim. *840 In Hunt v. Authier, 28 Cal.2d 288 [ 169 P.2d 913 , 171 A.L.R. 1379 ], an action for wrongful death was declared to constitute an “injury to property” within the meaning of Probate Code, section 574, the court stating (at p. 296), “It follows that wherever a plaintiff has sustained an injury to his ‘

1958There should be no distinction between injuries to property in cases of fraud and deceit, which are tortious acts, and injuries to property rights in other eases of tortious acts such as wrongful death.” (See *841 also Western Mortgage etc. Co. v. Gray, 215 Cal. 191 [ 8 P.2d 1016 , 80 A.L.R. 866 ].) In Casey v. Katz, 114 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 250 P.2d 291 ], an action for malicious prosecution of a battery action was held to be an “injury to property” under the terms of Probate Code, section 707.

1958There should be no distinction between injuries to property in cases of fraud and deceit, which are tortious acts, and injuries to property rights in other eases of tortious acts such as wrongful death.” (See *841 also Western Mortgage etc. Co. v. Gray, 215 Cal. 191 [ 8 P.2d 1016 , 80 A.L.R. 866 ].) In Casey v. Katz, 114 Cal.App.2d 391 [ 250 P.2d 291 ], an action for malicious prosecution of a battery action was held to be an “injury to property” under the terms of Probate Code, section 707.