| CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF LIMITATION / REPOSE | |
| I. | STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS |
| A. Negligence Actions | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (2017). | The statute of limitations for a personal injury action is 2 years. |
| B. Products Liability Actions Based on Negligence | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (2017); see Rivas v.
Safety-Kleen Corp., 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 503 (Ct. App. 2002).
|
The statute of limitations for a products liability action is 2 years. California courts applied the statute of limitations period set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340, the predecessor of § 335.1, to products liability actions. Nothing in the statutory notes for the new section indicates an intent to exclude products liability actions.
Personal injury actions based on exposure to asbestos are subject to a 1-year limitation. The statute of limitations for personal injury actions based on exposure to other hazardous or toxic substances is 2 years. |
| C. Wrongful Death Actions | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (2017). | The statute of limitations for a wrongful death action is 2 years. |
| D. Survival Action | |
| Snyder v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 205 Cal. App. 3d 1318, 1323, 253 Cal. Rptr.
156, 159 (Ct. App. 1988). |
A survival action must be brought within 2 years of the injury, or under the discovery rule, within 2 years of the time that the plaintiff becomes aware or should have been aware of the injury and that a reasonable person would be on notice that the injury was caused by the wrongful acts of another.
If fraudulent concealment applies, the statute of limitations is “tolled only for so long as the plaintiff remains justifiably ignorant of the facts upon which the cause of action depends.” |
| E. Products Liability Actions Based on Wrongful Death |
| CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF LIMITATION / REPOSE | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (2017).
|
The limitations period for products liability actions based on wrongful death is 2 years; no law was located that imposes a different limitations period on a products liability cause of action because it was based on wrongful death.
Wrongful death actions based on exposure to asbestos are subject to a 1-year limitation. The statute of limitations for wrongful death actions based on exposure to other hazardous or toxic substances is 2 years. |
| F. Others | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.5 (2017).
|
1. Generally, an adult’s medical malpractice action must be brought within 3 years from the date of injury or 1 year from the date of actual or constructive discovery of the injury, whichever occurs first. The statute may be tolled for longer than 3 years if defendant engages in fraud or intentional concealment, or the presence of a foreign object in the person exists.
2. However, if a person is under the age of majority or insane at the time the action accrues, such time until the person is of the age of majority is not part of the time counted for the commencement of the action. |
| II. | STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TRIGGERS |
| See Tucker v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 158 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 1998); See
also Fox v. Ethicon Endo- Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2005).
|
A. Case law under the since-repealed § 340 indicates that the statute of limitations for personal injury actions in California accrues as of the date of injury, but the date can be modified by the discovery rule. Research located no case law interpreting the application of the discovery rule to the recently enacted § 335.1.
The statute of limitations for personal injury actions caused by exposure to asbestos begins at the later of the time the plaintiff first suffered a disability or the plaintiff first knew or should have known that the disability was caused by asbestos exposure. The statute of limitations for personal injuries resulting from exposure to any other hazardous or toxic substance begins at the later of the date of injury or when the plaintiff first knew of the injury, the physical cause of the injury, and sufficient facts to inquire whether the injury was caused by exposure to the hazardous or toxic substance. |
| Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 981 P.2d 79 (Cal. 1999). | B. A wrongful death action generally accrues at the date of death. However, case law under the since-repealed Code Civ. Proc., § 340(3) noted that the Legislature left the rules for the accrual of a wrongful death cause of action to the courts. Noting that “at least as a usual matter, the date of accrual of a cause of action for wrongful death is
the date of death,” the court nevertheless “for purposes of discussion only,” assumed that the discovery rule may govern the date of accrual of a wrongful death cause of |
| CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF LIMITATION / REPOSE | |
|
|
action if the plaintiff is “blamelessly ignorant” of his cause of action.
The statute of limitations for wrongful death actions caused by exposure to asbestos begins at the later of the time death or the time when the plaintiff first knew or should have known that the death was caused by asbestos exposure. The statute of limitations for wrongful death resulting from exposure to any other hazardous or toxic substance begins at later of the date of death or when the plaintiff first knew of sufficient facts to inquire whether the death was caused by exposure to the hazardous or toxic substance. |
| III. | STATUTE OF REPOSE |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.5 (2017). | A. No medical malpractice claim may ordinarily be brought more than 3 years following the act causing injury or death, unless the time is tolled for fraud, intentional concealment, or the presence of a foreign body with no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect in the person of the injured person. |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.15 (2017). | B. No action for personal injury or property damage caused by a latent deficiency in the construction or repair of real property may be brought more than 10 years after substantial completion of the construction or repair. |
| IV. | ACCEPTS AMERICAN PIPE TOLLING DOCTRINE |
| Becker v. McMillin Constr. Co., 277 Cal. Rptr. 491 (Ct. App. 1991); Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923 (Cal.
1988). |
California has adopted the American Pipe tolling doctrine, as modified by Jolly, so that “under limited circumstances,” if class certification is denied, the statute of limitations is tolled from the commencement of the suit to the denial of certification for all purported members of the class who either make timely motions to intervene in the surviving individual action or timely file their individual actions. In Jolly, the court outlined two major policy considerations that the tolling rule was designed to accommodate: first, protection of efficiency and economy in litigation, so that putative class members would not have to seek to intervene or to join individually because of fear the class might not be certified; and second, to protect a defendant from unfair claims. In applying American Pipe, the Becker court concludes as follows:
We find it is possible for some prior class actions based on tort, particularly property damage cases, to provide adequate notice to a defendant so that tolling is proper, even where class certification had to be denied for lack of common questions. The narrow language of the actual holding in Jolly . . . indicates the Supreme Court was working cautiously in this complex area and left open the possibility of applying the tolling doctrine even in mass tort cases in which a lack of commonality had been found, if the circumstances so required. |
| V. | TOLLING AGREEMENTS |
| County of Santa Clara v. Vargas, 139 Cal. Rptr.537, | “[T]he parties to a contract may by agreement waive the running of the statute of limitations by express agreement.” |
| CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF LIMITATION / REPOSE | |
| 543 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1977).
ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588, 594 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2005). |
California allows contracting parties to both shorten and extend limitation periods. |
| VI. | CROSS JURISDICTIONAL TOLLING |
| Clemens v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008). | State does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling. |
| VII. | STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED |
| Garcia v. Lacey, 231 Cal. App. 4th 402 (2014) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 350, 411.10). | Actions are commenced when the plaintiff files a complaint or petition with the court. |
| VIII. | PUNITIVE DAMAGES |
| Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (2017); Stewart v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 338, 347 (Cal.
1993). |
Punitive damages may be awarded in an action not arising in contract if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. |
| CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF LIMITATION | |
| A. Fraud Actions | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d) (2017). | An action for fraud must be brought within 3 years after the facts constituting the fraud are discovered. |
| B. Breach of Written Contract Actions | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337 (2017). | An action on a written contract must be brought within 4 years. |
| CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF LIMITATION | |
| C. Breach of Oral Contract Actions | |
| Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1) (2017). | An action on an oral contract must be brought within 2 years. |
| D. Breach of Stockbroker’s Fiduciary Duty Actions | |
| See City of Vista v. Robert Thomas Secs., 101 Cal. Rptr.
2d 237, 84 Cal. App. 4th 882 (2000). |
An action for breach of fiduciary duty must generally be brought within 4 years. |
| E. Stockbroker’s Violations of State Security Laws | |
|
An action for fraud or misrepresentation must generally brought within the earlier of 5 years of the act giving rise to the cause of action or within 2 years after the violation was or should have been discovered. |
|
|
An action based on the sale of unregistered securities must generally brought within the earlier of 2 years of the act giving rise to the cause of action or within 1 year after the violation was or should have been discovered. |
|
| F. Violation of Deceptive Trade Practices Act | |
| Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (2017). | Any action to enforce any cause of action based on an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising shall be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued. |
| See Broberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 171 Cal. App.
4th 912, 920-21, 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 225, 231-32 (2009). |
“At least in the context of unfair competition claims based on the defendant\’s allegedly deceptive marketing materials and sales practices, which is simply a different legal theory for challenging fraudulent conduct and where the harm from the unfair conduct will not reasonably be discovered until a future date, we believe the better view is that the time to file a section 17200 cause of action starts to run only when a reasonable person would have discovered the factual basis for a claim. (See April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 828, 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 [“‘[the] nature of the right sued on, not the form of the action … determines the applicability of the statute of limitations\’ ”]; id. at p. 832, 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 [delayed discovery rule may be applied to breaches of contract that can be, and are, committed in secret and where the harm flowing from those breaches will not be reasonably discoverable until a future time].)” |
| See Broberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 171 Cal. App.
4th 912, 920, 90 |
“The Supreme Court has not yet decided, and the Courts of Appeal are in disagreement, whether the so- called delayed discovery rule applies to claims for unfair competition.” |
| CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF LIMITATION | |
| Cal. Rptr. 3d 225, 231 (2009). | |
| Cal. Civ. Code § 1783 (2017);
Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1148 (N.D. Cal. 2005). |
Any action brought under the specific provisions of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act shall be commenced not more than three years from the date of the commission of such method, act, or practice. The statute of limitations runs from the time a reasonable person would have discovered the basis for a claim. |
| 1. Any Pre-Suit Requirements
There is a 30-day pre-suit notice requirement. |
|
| Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(e) (2017). | 2. Fee-shifting Provisions
The court shall award court costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section. Reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded to a prevailing defendant upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action was not in good faith. |
| Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a), (c) (2017). | 3. Limits or boosters (like multipliers) on damages recoverable
Punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages and restitution. Compensatory damages in a class action have a floor of $1,000. Whenever it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has engaged in conduct in violation of paragraph (24) of subdivision (a) of Section 1770 (prohibiting charging unreasonable fees for assistance in or preparation of applications for social services) the court shall award treble actual damages to the plaintiff. |
If you would like to assert your legal rights, contact The Sterling Firm. Schedule a free initial consultation with an experienced lawyer at The Sterling Firm. We can help!
