PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven International, Inc.

A suit to cancel a deed of trust defendant gave his wholly-owned corporation to avoid paying his debts was barred by the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s a 7-year statute of repose on fraudulent transfer claims.  This decision holds that Civ. Code 3439.09(c)’s seven year limit is a statute of repose, not a statute of…

Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation

Under Spanish law, the prescriptive period for claims to possession of a Pisarro painting stolen from a German Jewish citizen by the Nazis and later sold to a Spanish museum, may not have expired if the museum had acquired the painting knowing all along that it was stolen.  In a return of this case on…

Kumari v. Hospital Committee for the Livermore-Pleasanton Areas

Plaintiff’s medical malpractice suit was untimely, having been filed more than a year after discovery of the malpractice; formal CCP 364 pre-suit notice from her attorney did not extend the limitations period since plaintiff had already sent her own letter which operated as a pre-suit notice despite not being intended as such.  Plaintiff’s medical malpractice…

City of Pasadena v. Superior Court

Plaintiff’s asbestos-caused mesothelioma claim accrued when she received that diagnosis; her government claim, filed 10 months later, was untimely, so her suit was dismissed.  Under Gov. Code 911.2, a person wishing to sue a governmental entity must first present a claim to the entity within six months of the date the claim “accrued” for purposes…

California Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc.

American Pipe tolling, an equitable doctrine, cannot override the Securities Act’s explicit three-year statute of repose.  Section 13 of the Securities Act (15 USC 77m) sets two time limits on suits for misrepresentations in initial securities offerings under Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The first requires suit to be filed within one year after…

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…