Statute of Limitations

Under CCP 361, if the claim arose in a foreign state and is barred by that state's statute of limitations, it is barred in California unless the plaintiff has been a citizen of California continuously from the accrual of the claim to the present and held the cause of action the whole time.  Here, Louisiana citizens sued for injuries sustained… Read More

The statute of limitations on a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment starts running only when the employee knows or reasonably should know of the employer's decision not to promote him or her.  Any period of time during which the employer's decision is not disclosed or otherwise made known to the employee does not count against the limitations period. Read More

Following Kim v. Reins Internat. California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, this decision holds that the fact that the plaintiff's individual claim is time-barred does not prevent him from bringing a PAGA action to collect civil penalties as to the employer's Labor Code violations as to other employees within the limitations period.  Lab. Code 2699(c) requires only that the plaintiff… Read More

Under CCP 12, courts must use the "anniversary method" of computing statutes of limitation periods, excluding the first day of the period and including the last (unless it is a holiday or weekend).  Thus, for a personal injury suit by a minor, the limitations period begins on the minor's 18th birthday.  That day is excluded, and the 2-year personal injury… Read More

The nature of the right sued upon and not the form of action nor the relief demanded determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.  So, in this case where plaintiff alleged that the seller's disclosures regarding real property sold to plaintiff were inaccurate or incomplete, the action was governed by the 3-year limitations period for fraud even though the… Read More

Under 28 USC 1367(d), an applicable state statute of limitations is tolled for a period of 30 days after the claim is dismissed from a federal lawsuit on the ground that the district court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the case.  This decision holds that the 30 day period does not begin to run on entry of the judgment of… Read More

This decision holds that a suit filed by the decedent's heirs under CCP 377.32 was timely since it was filed within the limitations period even though the heirs didn't file the required declarations until after the limitations period expired and even though after probate proceedings were begun on the decedents' estates, the complaint was amended to name as an added… Read More

Molfetta was White's criminal defense lawyer.  After White was convicted, he requested Molfetta's files so he could prepare habeas corpus petitions.  Molfetta failed to turn over the files.  While some of the files were confidential and could not be turned over, most were not and should have been timely provided once White requested them.  While condemning Molfetta's actions, this decision… Read More

Over a strong dissent, this decision holds that defendant agreed to an extension of the 3-year period in which to bring a case to trial after a reversal on appeal by orally agreeing in court to have the trial set on a specific date more than three years after the case was remanded to the trial court.  (See CCP 583.330.) Read More

California's 2-year statute of limitations rather than Connecticut's 3-year statute of limitations applies to a products liability claim brought by plaintiff who then resided in and were injured in Connecticut by the defendant California manufacturer's malfunctioning medical robotic surgery device.  A statute of limitations serves the state's interest in protecting its defendants against stale claims on which memories will have… Read More

Questions of fact about when Greenberg's partner stopped working for plaintiff precluded summary judgment in Greenberg's favor on statute of limitations grounds. Read More

USC did not exceed its jurisdiction in suspending Alpha Nu for six years as a result of its misconduct in hazing pledges during the 2016 rush week even though it acted on a complaint filed 14 months later.  USC's internal disciplinary process is not governed by any statute of limitations.  Here, the complaint was just two months later than USC's… Read More

Following Eisenberg Village, etc. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1201, this decision holds that an owner's suit seeking disgorgement of compensation paid an unlicensed contractor is a suit for a statutory penalty governed by CCP 340(a)'s one-year statute of limitations.  The discovery rule and other equitable doctrines do not operate to extend that one year limitations period. Read More

Threatening or filing suit on a time-barred debt is a misleading and unfair debt collection practice violating 15 USC 1692e and 1692f.  To allege and prove a violation of those sections, the debtor need not allege or prove that the debt collector knew the debt was time-barred.  However, the debt collector may be able to establish an affirmative defense of… Read More

A release that ratepayers were required to sign in order to obtain a partial rebate of illegal water charges was enforceable.  The city did not fraudulently conceal facts from ratepayers.  Its FAQs said the partial refund was due to the statute of limitations barring claims for any greater refund and revealed that the overcharges had been assessed for a longer… Read More

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal decides that the plaintiff hospital cannot prevail on its claim of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations to petition for relief from the state agency's decision against it.  The decision clearly stated that it was effective immediately.  The state APA sections (Gov. Code 11521 and 11523) clearly provide that… Read More

Under CCP 340.5, the statute of limitations on a medical malpractice claim expires at the earlier of three years from the date of injury or one year from the date of discovery.  Injury from the failure to diagnose a latent, progressive condition occurs “when the undiagnosed condition develops into a more serious condition,” and that more serious condition is made… Read More

Under the rule announced in Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, the statute of limitations does not start to run on a quiet title action so long as the plaintiff remains in possession of the premises, even if plaintiff is aware of conflicting claims against the property, so long as the conflicting claims are not pressed against him.  In … Read More

This decision holds that CCP 351, which tolls the statute of limitations while the defendant is absent from the state, is unconstiturional as violative of the dorman Commerce Clause insofar as it tolls the statute of limitations on claims against a defendant who was a California resident when the claim accrued, but later moved permanently out of state.  Here, plaintiff… Read More

The federal Wiretap Act provides a civil cause of action to any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523. (18 U.S.C. § 2520(a).)  Under § 2520(e), the action must be brought no later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable… Read More