Government Liability Update
Pollak, Vida & Barer's "Weblawg" of Important Developments in California Public Entity Tort Liability. Edited by Daniel P. Barer, Partner, Pollak, Vida & Barer
Daniel P. Barer
Government Code Statutory Immunities Are Not Jurisdictional; They Must Be Pleaded
Issues of Fact Defeat Summary Judgment for Officer Shooting Suspected Knife Wielder Without Warning or Identifying Himself
Section 1983 Claim for Prosecution Based on Fabricated Evidence Accrues When Criminal Prosecution Terminates in Plaintiff's Favor
School District Was Entitled to Private Attorney General Fees for Enforcing Charter School Statutes
Limited Success in Section 1983 Lawsuit Plus Inflated Fee Request Justified Trial Court in Denying Fee Request Entirely
Supreme Court Overrules Williamson County; Federal Takings Claims Are Ripe at the Time of Taking without Compensation
Trial Court Properly Granted Conditional New Trial/Remittitur when Size of Verdict indicates Jury Punished Public Entity Employer
Decision to Release 5150 Detainee Is Not Protected by Anti-SLAPP Law
Recission of Peace Officer's Promotion During Probationary Period Did Not Entitle Officer to an Administrative Appeal
Prosecutor's Disclosure to Superiors of Lack of Probable Cause to Prosecute Defendant Is Protected under Whistleblowing Statute
Anti-SLAPP
Assumption of the Risk
Attorney-Client Privilege
City Charters
Claim Procedure
Comparative fault
Dangerous Conditions of Public Property
Defense and Indemnity
Disabled Persons' Rights
Federal Civil Rights
Firearm Regulation
Forfeitures
Inverse Condemnation
Local Legislators' Liability
mandatory duty
Prisoner's Rights
Property Regulation
Public Attorneys
Public Employment
Respondeat Superior for Sexual Misconduct
School District Liability
State Law Civil Rights
Taxpayer's Suits
tolling
Vexatious Litigants
writ relief
« In Lawsuit against School District for Negligent Supervision of Teacher, Court Erred in Excluding Evidence of Alleged Prior Misconduct as Irrelevant | Main | Ballots Are Exempt from Disclosure under the California Public Records Act »
The Anniversary Method of Calculating Deadlines Applies to the Statute of Limitations for Filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after a Minor Achieves Majority
In Shalabi v. City of Fontana, published May 21, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2 reversed a judgment against the plaintiff after a bench trial. The plaintiff sued a police officer under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for allegedly wrongfully shooting and killing the plaintiff's father when plaintiff was a minor. The plaintiff turned 18 on December 3, 2011. He filed his complaint on December 3, 2013. The court held a bench trial on stipulated facts on the issue of whether the complaint was filed within the statute of limitations. It concluded that the last day to file the suit was December 2, 2013, and that the lawsuit was time-barred.
The appellate court ruled that the trial court calculated the last day to file incorrectly. Under section 1983, California's statute of limitations for personal injury actions--two years--applies. California law controls the tolling of that statute of limitations. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 352, a minor's cause of action is tolled until the minor turns 18. The statute begins running on the minor's 18th birthday. The two methods of calculating the statute of limitations after the tolling period ended are the anniversary method and the calendar method. The trial court used the calendar method. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 12, however, California law uses the anniversary method, under which the first day of the period is excluded and the last day is included. Since the plaintiff's birthday on December 3, 2011 was the triggering date, that day is excluded, and the count starts with December 4. Two calendar years from that date is December 3, 2013. That date is included. So the last day to file was December 3, 2013. An 1884 California Supreme Court case held that the first day is counted, because the plaintiff has the entire first day of majority to file suit. That case did not address section 12, and so is not binding authority on section 12's application.
May 21, 2019 in Civil Procedure, Federal Civil Rights, Police Liability, statute of limitations | Permalink