Thursday, June 4, 2026
Page 3
Premature Suit Against City Bars Litigation Permanently—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has held that a woman who sued the City of West Hollywood before it turned down her claim or it was denied by operation of law, then dismissed her action without prejudice when it became clear that she had not acted in compliance with statute, could not cure the defect by refiling the lawsuit after the requisite waiting period expired.
Acting Presiding Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. of Div. Eight authored the opinion, filed Tuesday, saying that Michelle Harland, who sued after slipping and falling on a sidewalk along the Sunset Strip, is forever barred from maintaining her action based on her gaffe in filing a complaint prematurely.
Wiley recited:
“The purpose of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, 810 et seq.) is to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances….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….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….
“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.”
Premature Filing
Harland did file a timely claim—on April 5, 2023—but brought suit two days later, with no action having been taken on the claim by the city. The defendant on May 22 demurred based on noncompliance with the statute.
That same day, Harland filed an amended complaint.
On Sept. 5, 2023, Ford overruled the demurrer based on “substantial compliance” with the Government Claims Act but signaled a likelihood that he would grant summary judgment in favor of the city should such relief be sought.
The plaintiff on Oct. 13, 2023, dismissed her action without prejudice, but filed a new complaint, virtually identical to the first one, on Feb. 26, 2024. On July 31, the city demurred to the new complaint and on Nov. 14, Ford sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, explaining:
“Here the Court agrees with the City that Plaintiff cannot cure their initial premature service of the initial complaint before the waiting period expired. No authority has concluded the voluntary dismissal and refiling of a complaint cures the harm to the City from being served with the complaint before the 45-day waiting period expired.”
Argument on Appeal
Harland appealed, arguing:
“[E]recting a rigid and inflexible procedural process that filters out legitimate claims that have been timely presented and sued on does not fulfill the public policy purposes of the government claim statutes.”
She maintained:
“Two points are important here. First, the 45-day period under the statutes expired on May 22, 2023—the same day the City filed its demurrer….Thus, at that point, the demurrer was actually moot, since the claim was deemed denied as a matter of law on that date.
“Second, Harland filed a First Amended Complaint alleging her complete compliance with the claim statutes, that same day….
“Thus, even if the initial complaint had been premature, the amended complaint cured that ‘defect.’ ”
Wiley’s Opinion
Wiley agreed with Ford’s reasoning. He wrote:
“Harland’s premature filing of her first lawsuit violated the Act. She deprived the City of the opportunity to investigate her claim before forcing it into litigation with her. Indeed, the City tried to serve Harland with a demurrer to her original complaint on the same day she filed her amended complaint. By then, the lawsuit was in full swing. Time spent on litigation is gone forever and can never be recovered….
“It is immaterial the City later denied Harland’s claim. Her premature suit contravened the Act.”
The case is Harland v. City of West Hollywood, 2026 S.O.S. 1643.
Harland was represented by mid-Wilshire David Azizi and by Sharon J. Arkin, a member of the State Bar of California whose office is now located in Oregon.
Acting for the city were David M. Ferrante-Alan and Stephanie H. Hsieh of the Pasadena firm of Wesierski & Zurek Pollak and by Daniel P. Barer and Karen M. Stepanyan of Vida & Barer in West Los Angeles.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company