During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Statute of Limitations

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.

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

Under Gov. Code 945.3, a person charged with a criminal offense may not bring a claim against a police officer or the police department relating to the charged offence, including any act or omission in the arrest or detention, while the criminal charges are pending in the superior court.  This decision holds that the statute tolls the statute of limitations… Read More

Under the continuing violations doctrine, an employer is liable for actions that took place outside the limitations period if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the limitations period.  Here, Blue Fountain subjected the plaintiff to a continuous course of sexual harassment for more than a decade.  When plaintiff finally quit or was terminated, she sued. … Read More

Defendant’s repeated kicks and punches of the plaintiff was sufficient evidence of malice and/or intent to injure, thus providing sufficient justification for a punitive damages award. Read More

For limitations purposes, the client discovered malpractice claim against a lawyer who structured a transaction when the other party to the transaction threatened to sue client based on the transaction’s structure. Read More

Plaintiff is estopped from arguing defendant waived untimeliness of her government claim because she misrepresented in the claim when she learned of her claim, making it seem timely when it was not. Read More

1 2 3 4