Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Statute of Limitations

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

A claim under the Administrative Procedure Act that a federal administrative agency's regulation is contrary to the enabling statute must be filed within 6 years after the claim accrues.  28 USC 2401.  This decision holds that the claim accrues and the six years begins to run when the plaintiff is injured by the challenged regulation--since before then, the plaintiff lacks… Read More

Assuming without deciding that the discovery rule applies to extend the otherwise applicable 3-year statute of limitations on copyright infringement claims, this opinion hold that a plaintiff's damages are not limited to those suffered in the three years before suit was filed.  The statute of limitations bars untimely suit.  It does not govern damage recovery.  The Copyright Act's remedial provisions… Read More

28 USC 1367(d) provides that the statute of limitations on any claim within a federal court's supplemental jurisdiction (and any other claim that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time) is tolled for 30 days after the supplemental jurisdiction claim is dismissed.  This decision holds that the 30 day tolling provision applies only when the supplemental jurisdiction claim is involuntarily… Read More

A civil suit for child pornography under 18 USC 2255 is governed by a 10 year statute of limitations.  However, the limitations period runs from each republication of the pornography since republication can cause a new personal injury.  Here, the complaint alleged a republication of the record album containing a nude picture of plaintiff's naked body in a swimming pool. … Read More

Over a dissent, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations period (CCP 340.5) applies to a claim by a driver of a car injured by an EMT's negligent driving in delivering a patient to a hospital.  Delivering a patient to a hospital is a medical service which can be a matter of life and death to the patient.  The fact… Read More

Agreeing with Connelly v. Bornstein (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 783 and Garcia v. Rosenberg (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1050, this decision holds that CCP 340.6's one-year limitations periods governs a malicious prosecution action against the attorney for the opposing party in the underlying litigation.  CCP 340.6(a)(2) tolls that one-year period during the time “[t]he attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the… Read More

This decision affirms dismissal of a case under the 5 year statute.  It holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not tolling the 5 year statute during the 16 month period in which the court was not holding jury trials due to COVID-19 because during that period plaintiff was not ready to go to trial anyway,… Read More

The Judicial Council had constitutional authority to adopt Emergency Rule 9 extending statutes of limitation by six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Governor Newson's executive order granting the Judicial Council authority to adopt that rule was itself authorized by Gov. Code 8571. Read More

Here, a lender sued on a HELOC loan which provided for monthly payments, gave the lender the discretion to accelerate the loan on default, and provided for any remaining balance to fall due on a specified date.  This decision holds that the HELOC called for separate, divisible performances by the borrower--namely, the monthly payments.  So that the lender could sue… Read More

A 2022 amendment to CCP 340.16(b)(3) revives until 2026 claims for damage resulting from sexual assault that occurred after 2008.  This decision holds that the amendment revives any claim for damages arising from a sexual assault, without regard to the legal theory of the claim, and is not limited to tort claims for sexual assault or battery.  However, it questions… Read More

Defendant disability insurer wrote plaintiff insured in 2015 that it had determined his disability arose from illness rather than accident and so would stop paying benefits in 2018 when he turned 65 as the policy allowed for illness-caused disability.  Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant in 2019, more than four years after the 2015 letter,… Read More

28 USC 1367(d) provides that when a case is brought within the federal courts' original jurisdiction and state law claims are also asserted, invoking the federal court's supplemental jurisdiction, any applicable statute of limitations is tolled for a period of 30 days following dismissal of the state law claims if the federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them.  This… Read More

This case denies American Pipe tolling of the statute of limitations on claims for statutory penalties under the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code 1786.50).  The act clearly states that statutory penalties cannot be recovered in a class action, so that affected consumers could not reasonably rely on the pendency of a prior class action to protect their right… Read More

Most time deadline statutes and rules are now construed as non-jurisdictional unless Congress has clearly stated otherwise.  The 12-year statute of limitations on quiet title actions against the United States (28 U.S.C. §2409a(g)) is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional statute.  The time limit appears in a section separate from the Quiet Title Act's jurisdictional provision and does not… Read More

This decision holds that the trial court erred in granting one defendant summary judgment based on a statute of limitations defense.  The argument and evidence on summary judgment addressed when plaintiff discovered the contracts signed by an independent contractor were void under This decision holds that the trial court erred in granting one defendant summary judgment based on a statute… Read More

1 2 3 5