Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co.

The claims in pro per plaintiff’s second amended complaint were time-barred because his initial complaint—filed before the limitations period had expired—was so deficient that it did not put the defendant on notice of any claim.  Following Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 409, this decision holds that a pro per plaintiff’s original…

Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc.

Plaintiff could not rely on the delayed discovery rule to toll the limitations period on his fraud claim, because memoranda dating to the time of the alleged fraud—which were presented as part of plaintiff’s own evidence—disclosed the very facts which gave rise to the claim.  Stella claimed defendants defrauded him in connection with selling him…

ZF Micro Devices Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd.

The filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations for claims that the defendant pleads in a cross-complaint in the same action, regardless whether the cross-complaint is compulsory or permissive.  Acknowledging disagreement on the subject, this decision holds that the rule that the filing of the complaint tolls the statute of limitations for claims…

Nava v. Saddleback Memorial Medical Center

The one-year limitations period governing medical malpractice actions (CCP 340.5) governs a claim of injury suffered on a fall from a hospital  gurney, since gurney transport was under a doctor’s orders and was integral to the patient’s treatment.  Following Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal.4th 75, this decision holds that the one-year limitations…

A.M. v. Ventura Unified School Dist.

A claim of childhood sexual abuse brought against a government agency is exempt from the requirement of filing a government claim before suing even if the abuse is not alleged to have been committed by the agency’s employee, volunteer, representative or agent.  By enacting Gov. Code 905(m), the Legislature abrogated Shirk v. Vista Unified School…

Herrera v. Command Security Corp.

The six-month limitations period under the federal Railway Labor Act was equitably tolled by time expended while the parties brought their dispute before the Railway Mediation Board.  Claims under the Railway Labor Act must be brought within six months after their accrual, but in this case, the court holds that the limitations period was equitably…

Vishva Dev, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co.

The limitations period for a doctor’s claim for payment of services rendered insured patients is not tolled while the doctor invokes the insurer’s internal process for appealing claim denials.  Doctor sued Blue Shield in quantum meruit for emergency medical services rendered to two of Blue Shield’s insureds.  A quantum meruit claim is governed by a…

California American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist.

A public entity has four years to sue to invalidate its own contract under Gov. Code 1090 because of a board member approving the contract was on the contractor’s payroll, not the mere 60 days allowed a private party to sue to invalidate the public entity’s contracts.  The statute forming a water district provided that…

National Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. RBS Securities, Inc.

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) provides an extension on the statutes of limitations for contract and tort claims in actions brought by the National Credit Union Administration Board, which supersedes other limitations periods set by state or federal statute.  12 USC 1787(b)(14) (part of FIRREA) provides that the statute of limitations…

Aldana v. Stillwagon

Plaintiff injured in an auto accident by defendant driving an ambulance was subject to the two-year limitations period for personal injury claims arising from general negligence—as opposed to the one-year period that applies to medical malpractice claims—since the act of driving the ambulance does not involve the practice of medicine.  Aldana was injured in an…

Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health

Plaintiff’s one-year limitations period for bringing suit after the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing issued a right-to-sue letter should be equitably tolled for a year beyond the EEOC’s issuance of its own right-to-sue  letter, because plaintiff reasonably relied on the DFEH letter’s incorrect statement that the limitations period would be tolled while EEOC…

Brooks v. Mercy Hospital

A prisoner serving a life sentence with possibility of parole is entitled to a two-year tolling of the statute of limitations on his medical malpractice claims arising out of treatment in a prison hospital.  Under CCP 352.1, a prisoner serving a sentence for a term less than for life is entitled to toll the statute…