In the exercise of their equitable powers, courts may equitably toll statutes of limitation except when the Legislature has clearly indicated its intent that a limitations period not by extended by equitable tolling.  Gov. Code 11523, which sets a 30-day deadline for filing a petition for administrative mandate to review administrative determinations, does not clearly exclude equitable tolling.  Thus, equitable tolling of that deadline is allowed.  However, equitable tolling is permitted only when three “elements” are present:  (1) timely notice, (2) lack of prejudice, to the defendant, and (3) reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff.  Here, plaintiff established the first two elements.  It applied for reconsideration well within the 30 day deadline and emailed its intent to appeal if reconsideration was not granted, thus notifying the defendant of its challenge to the administrative decision–even if reconsideration was not permitted because the administrative decision had been made immediately effective.  Defendant suffered no prejudice from the delayed filing of the petition for administrative mandate; reliance on the statute of limitations is not, in itself, prejudice.  The third element of equitable tolling requires objectively reasonable conduct by the late-filing plaintiff as well as its subjective good faith.  Here, the record left that element in doubt, so the case was remanded for further proceedings regarding that element.