Don't Let a Procedural Misstep Cost You Your Case Against a Public Entity

If your company does work on public projects in California, you know firsthand that getting paid when a dispute arises with a public agency is rarely straightforward. One of the most important, and most frequently misunderstood, requirements is the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 810 et seq.). A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, Harland v. City of West Hollywood (June 2, 2026, B343375), is a pointed reminder of just how unforgiving these rules can be. And while Harland involved a personal injury claim, the lessons apply just as directly to contractors pursuing payment disputes, changed work disputes, delay damages, or other project-related losses against public entities.

What Is the Government Claims Act?

Before you can sue a city, county, district, or other public agency in California, you must go through a mandatory claims presentation process. The Government Claims Act exists to give public entities a real opportunity to investigate and resolve claims before anyone ends up in costly litigation. Two core rules apply: (1) you must present your claim within a specific time period after it arises; and (2) you cannot file suit until the entity either denies your claim or fails to act within 45 days. These are not optional steps and compliance with claim requirements is a condition precedent to bringing any valid action against a public entity. As Harland makes clear, the consequences of getting this wrong are severe.

It is also worth noting that the Government Claims Act does not operate in isolation. For contractors on public works projects, these requirements run parallel to other statutory frameworks, most notably Public Contract Code § 9204, which imposes its own separate claim presentation and dispute resolution obligations for contractor claims against public entities. Understanding how these overlapping requirements interact is critical, and missing a step under either framework can be damaging to your case.

What Went Wrong in Harland

In Harland, the plaintiff (Michelle Harland) tripped and fell near a City-maintained sidewalk in October 2022. Her counsel mailed a claim for damages just two days before the six-month deadline, and then filed suit two days after that. The problem? The City (City of West Hollywood) did not receive the mailed claim until three days after the lawsuit was already filed. By filing suit before the 45 day waiting period had even started running, the plaintiff deprived the City of any meaningful opportunity to investigate and resolve the claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal with prejudice and the case was over.

You Cannot Fix a Premature Filing By Dismissing and Refiling

Here is the part that concerns me most for clients in this situation. The plaintiff in Harland voluntarily dismissed her first lawsuit and refiled, this time alleging that the City had since denied her claim. The court was unmoved. Once you file suit before satisfying the claim presentation requirements, that violation cannot be undone by simply starting over. If you file prematurely, even inadvertently, even under deadline pressure, you may permanently forfeit your right to pursue that claim against the public entity.

The Substantial Compliance Doctrine Has Narrow Limits

California courts recognize a doctrine of substantial compliance with the Government Claims Act, but it is narrow and courts apply it sparingly. The plaintiff in Harland tried to rely on Malear v. State of California, 89 Cal. App. 5th 213 (2023), which applied the doctrine in a plaintiff's favor. In Malear, the plaintiff had also filed suit prematurely, but the court allowed the action to proceed because the plaintiff served an amended complaint alleging the required claim denial before the defendants had ever appeared in the litigation. The critical distinction, according to the Harland court, is that the public entity in Malear had not yet been drawn into the lawsuit when the plaintiff corrected the defect. In Harland, by contrast, the City had already been served with the original complaint before any amended pleading was filed. Once the public entity is pulled into active litigation, the underlying purpose of the Government Claims Act, to provide a genuine pre-litigation opportunity to investigate and resolve the dispute, is defeated. Contractors should not treat substantial compliance as a fallback option. It is an exception confined to a narrow procedural window, and as Harland demonstrates, that window closes the moment the public entity is served.

The Public Entity's Actual Knowledge of Your Claim Is Not a Defense

Contractors sometimes assume that if a public agency already knows about a dispute, through project records, inspector reports, or prior correspondence, there is no real harm in moving quickly to litigation. The court in Harland firmly rejected that logic. Compliance with the claim presentation requirements is mandatory, and it "cannot be excused on the theory that the entity was not surprised by the suit." The burden falls squarely on the claimant to ensure the claim is properly and timely presented, regardless of what the public entity already knows.

A Forfeited Argument: Meet and Confer Obligations and Waiver on Appeal

Harland raised one additional argument on appeal: that the City's failure to conduct a reasonable meet and confer before filing its first demurrer should estop it from arguing that her premature lawsuit prejudiced the City's ability to investigate her claim. The Court did not reach the merits of that argument. The City responded that Harland had never raised the adequacy of its meet and confer efforts before the trial court, and the Court agreed that the argument was therefore forfeited and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The lesson here is a familiar and important one to preserve your arguments at the trial court level.

It is also worth recognizing the strategic reality underlying cases like Harland. Public entities and their counsel are well aware that a procedural defect under the Government Claims Act can end a lawsuit before any merits-based argument is ever tested. In practice, agencies tend to lean hardest on claim presentation defenses in cases where the underlying liability exposure is significant and the substantive defenses are weak. A contractor with a strong change order claim, well-documented delay damages, or clear evidence of wrongful withholding may find that the public entity's first and most forceful line of defense is not a dispute over the facts, but a procedural objection rooted in a missed deadline or a prematurely filed complaint. This pattern means that the strength of your case on the merits offers no protection if your claims handling was deficient. Courts do not weigh the equities of the underlying dispute against the procedural default; they apply the statute as written.

Practical Lessons for Contractors on Public Works Projects

For contractors working on public projects, the stakes of non-compliance with claim presentation requirements are significant. The Government Claims Act, along with the parallel statutory frameworks that apply to public works disputes, requires careful navigation at every stage. Engaging counsel early is one of the most effective steps you can take to protect your right to recover on a public works project. Here is why:

1. The deadlines are strict and unforgiving. Under Government Code § 911.2, you have one year from the date of the breach or incident to present a written claim to the public entity. Miss that window, and you face an uphill battle just to get your foot in the door. Counsel can help you identify when a claim has accrued and make sure the clock does not run out on you before you have even started.

2. Proper presentation is harder than it looks. A claim must be presented to the right entity, in the right form, with the right content, and confirmed as received before any deadlines start running. As Harland shows, mailing a claim and assuming it was received is not enough. An attorney can ensure your claim is presented correctly and that you have the documentation to prove it.

3. The 45 day waiting period must be strictly honored. After presenting your claim, you cannot file suit until the public entity denies the claim or 45 days pass without a response. That waiting period is not a formality and filing early, as the plaintiff in Harland learned, can permanently end your case. Counsel can make sure you do not inadvertently step over that line.

4. The Government Claims Act is just one layer. Public Contract Code § 9204 and other statutes impose separate and independent claim presentation and dispute resolution requirements that apply alongside the Government Claims Act. An experienced construction attorney can map out every applicable requirement for your specific project and make sure nothing falls through the cracks.

5. There is often no do-over once you file prematurely. Harland makes clear that dismissing and refiling will not cure a premature lawsuit. The substantial compliance doctrine is a narrow exception, not a safety net. Getting counsel involved before you file, not after something goes wrong, is a more reliable way to protect your right to pursue a claim.

Conclusion

The Government Claims Act is not fine print. It is the gateway to any tort or contract claim against a California public entity, and courts enforce it strictly. One misstep, such as a lawsuit filed before the waiting period runs, can permanently bar an otherwise valid case. If you are working on a public works project and a dispute is brewing, do not wait. The further a dispute progresses without proper claims handling, the fewer options you have. Reach out to Katbi Law PC before a dispute ripens into litigation to make sure your claims are properly presented and your rights are fully preserved.