Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations in California

1Dear [FIRSTNAME], Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in the State of California is the topic of this issue of the newsletter. Under certain circumstances the statute of limitations may be equitably tolled. Tolling suspends the time limitation for filing a particular action which would otherwise be time barred. Equitable tolling is a doctrine that has been created by the courts that recognizes some exceptions where a purely technical application of procedural rules would result in a manifest injustice. --------------Reminder: THE AUTHOR NOW SELLS COLLECTIONS OF SAMPLE LEGAL DOCUMENTS AT A HUGE DISCOUNT! VISIT THE WEBSITE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION. http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro/collections --------------For example in one case decided by a California Court of Appeal the Plaintiff's lawyer was hit by a car and seriously injured. While he was incapacitated, the statute of limitations ran on one of his cases. The statute of limitations was equitably tolled pursuant to Civil Code § 3531 which states: "The law never requires impossibilities." Lewis v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 366, 380. And the same court also stated that a catastrophic fire or earthquake could also invoke the impossibility grounds, see Lewis supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at page 378. Other cases have involved interference. In one case the defendant’s conduct contributed to the plaintiff’s delay in filing his lawsuit. Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 399, 411. And the limitations period is also extended when a person has several legal remedies and, “reasonably and in good faith” and “timely” meaning within the statute of limitations pursues one of them but believing the second “similar” claim is unnecessary or can’t be filed until the first remedy is pursued; and the defendant is not prejudiced because the first claim alerts the defendant to begin investigating the facts which form the basis for the second factually similar claim. Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 917, 924-926; see also Myers v. County of Orange (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 626, 634. This issue contains some very valuable information that just might revive a case where the statute of limitations may be seemingly blown. Future issues will discuss other examples of statutory tolling of the statute of limitations in California. If you enjoy this newsletter, tell others about it. They can subscribe by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

It would be greatly appreciated if you would visit the website at http://www.facebook.com/LegalDocsPro and give it a like if you have Facebook. Have a great week and thanks for being a subscriber. Yours Truly, Stan Burman The author of this newsletter, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995, and recently relocated to Asia. Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER: Please note that the author of this newsletter, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this newsletter is NOT intended to constitute legal advice. These materials and information contained in this newsletter have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this newsletter is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the sender and receiver. Subscribers and any other readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.