Armendariz

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

We review the trial court’s denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion. (Hayter Trucking, Inc. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1, 12-13; Everett v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 649, 655.) “[W]e determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 506.) Plaintiffs, as the appellants, bear the burdening of proving the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Traders Sports, Inc. v. City of San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 37, 43), a burden they have not satisfied.

II. Plaintiffs’ Claim Was Untimely

Before suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity. (Gov. Code, § 911.23; State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 (Bodde); but see Gov. Code, § 905 [itemized exceptions not relevant here].) Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is “ ‘ “a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant” ’…