In Moore v. Morhar (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 896, plaintiff visited Los Angeles where she injured her foot on cracked curbing. (Moore, supra, 65 Cal.App.3d at p. 899.) Based on the advice of her counsel, she filed an application for leave to file a late claim with the City of Los Angeles (the City). (Ibid.) The City granted the application to file late, but denied the claim on the merits. (Ibid.) The City explained that the curb in question was under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles (the County). (Ibid.) Plaintiff did not inform her counsel of that fact. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed suit against the City and the County. (Ibid.) Subsequently, seven months after filing a claim with the City, plaintiff filed an application to file a late claim with the County, which was denied. (Id. at p. 900.) She also petitioned the court to file a late claim, which was likewise denied. (Ibid.) The court sustained a demurrer. (Ibid.) On appeal, the plaintiff claimed she was excused from the claim presentation requirement pursuant to section 950.4. She claimed "that her mistaken belief that the City was involved, or, concomitantly, her ignorance of the fact that the defective curbing lay just outside the City in an unincorporated area within County jurisdiction, was reasonable." (Moore, supra, 65 Cal.App.3d at p. 902.) The court rejected the argument: "a claimant under section 950.4 should exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the facts giving rise to his or her cause of action. Surely, since appellant was aware of the claim-filing procedure and time restraints, a perusal of a city map would have been reasonable and would also have revealed that the situs of her injury was within County territory. By the same token, she must have known that an employee was in charge of the condition of curbs." (Ibid.)