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.

Under CCP 340.1(b), a plaintiff may obtain treble damages against a person whose cover up is found to be the cause of a sexual assault on a child through a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to childhood sexual assault.  This decision holds that the treble damage provision does not apply retroactively.  The statute espressly makes the lengthened statute of… Read More

The trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment based on expiration of the statute of limitations (CCP 340.5) in this medical malpractice case arising from a stillbirth following an operation to turn the fetus to a head-down position for birth.  There was a question of fact as to whether plaintiff subjectively suspected malpractice the day before delivering the stillborn… Read More

Following ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 69, this decision holds that the filing of the complaint tolls the statute of limitations for all claims the defendant pleads in a cross-complaint, whether compulsory or permissive, so long as the cross-claim was not time-barred at the time the complaint was filed.  This limitations tolling doctrine… Read More

The trial court erred in granting the defendant attorney summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds since there was a triable issue of fact as to when his representation of the plaintiff was terminated--either slightly more or slightly less than a year before the malpractice action was filed.  There was no formal withdrawal until less than a year before suit. … Read More

If a statute prescribes a time limit within which a petition, appeal or other pleading must be filed, it will be treated as jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states that the time limit is jurisdictional.  Jurisdictional time limits cannot be waived or forfeited, must be raised by courts sua sponte, and do not allow for equitable exceptions.  Here, the Court… Read More

Following Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations on medical malpractice claims and $250,000 limit on non-economic damages did not apply to this elderly woman who was sexually assaulted by the defendant elder care facility's male attendant, based on a jury's finding that the defendant was not only guilty not only of general… Read More

Following Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations on medical malpractice claims and $250,000 limit on non-economic damages did not apply to this elderly woman's who was sexually assaulted by the defendant elder care facility's male attendant, based on a jury's finding that the defendant was not only guilty not only of general… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing this action as a sanction under CCP 128.7 on the ground that there was no reasonable ground for thinking it was not barred by the statute of limitations.  The action sought to quiet title to the property that the plaintiff had purchased in 2008 with knowledge of prior agreements purportedly assigning "coverage… Read More

CCP 340.5's one-year statute of limitations, not the general two-year limitations period for personal injuries applied to this action by an emergency room patient who was injured when she collapsed on the way back from the bathroom.  The emergency room nursing staff made a medical decision that the patient did not need to be accompanied to and from the restroom. … Read More

1 2 3 4