California has a four year statute of limitations for written contracts. (Code Civil Procedure Sec. 337.)
The two-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 339 applies to quasi-contractual actions. (Davies v. Krasna (1975) 14 Cal.3d 502, 509, fn. 6). "The general rule for defining the accrual of a cause of action sets the date as the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements." (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 389, finding that plaintiff's action was barred by applicable statute of limitations and not saved by delayed discovery rule.)
A standard choice-of-law provision incorporates the statutes of limitations of the chosen state. (Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical Internat., Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1536.) As a result, the choice-of-law provision requires application of a foreign statute of limitations which is shorter than the otherwise applicable California statute of limitations. (Id.) The law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and duties will be applied unless either:
(a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties' choice, or (b) application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue, and which would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law provision.
(Id. at 1544 citing Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 459, 464-465 and Section 187 of the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws.)
A demurrer on the ground a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations should be sustained only where the facts alleged on the face of the complaint “clearly and affirmatively” show that the cause of action is barred. It is not enough that the complaint might be barred. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403. See Roman v. County of Los Angeles (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 316, 324 stating: “A general demurrer based on statute of limitations is only permissible where the dates alleged in the complaint show that the action is barred by the statute of limitations... The running of the statute must appear ‘clearly and affirmatively’ from the dates alleged. It is not sufficient that the complaint might be barred.”)
Moreover, it is held that if a complaint alleges wrongful conduct commencing at a time now barred by the statute of limitations, but continuing until a date not barred, there is no ground for general demurrer based on the statute of limitations. (See Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.App.3d 773, 786.)
To raise a statute of limitations defense on demurrer, “the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.” (Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42, internal quotation marks omitted.) In general, a statute of limitations begins to run “when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements,” namely, wrongdoing, causation, and resulting harm. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397.)
A motion to strike is the proper procedure to challenge a pleading when it appears on the face of the complaint that a portion of the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682–1683.) Therefore, if the claims are found to be barred, the motion to strike should be granted; and if the claims are found not to be barred, the motion should be denied.
Motion by Saddleback Corp. dba Saddleback Waterproof for Summary Judgment or Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Defendant Saddleback’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of Issues 5 and 6 (statute of limitations) is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issues 1, 3 and 4 (contract-based claims), with leave to amend as to Plaintiffs T-12 and HRG only.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A_________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Oct 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.2; open book – CC 1717.5.) See above______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Sep 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes_______ __ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Sep 23, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Aug 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes __ __ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Aug 14, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Aug 12, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action: Inducing Breach of Contract (i.e., Issues Nos. 14-21) “The elements of a cause of action for inducing breach of contract are the existence of a valid contract, defendants’ intent to induce a breach of the contract, and a breach resulting from defendants’ unjustifiable or wrongful conduct.” (Scott v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 277, 292.)
Aug 06, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
No Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) No Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death).
Aug 06, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chen, Tissuesco and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty On October 23, 2019, Chen’s default was entered. Discussion The hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to September 2, 2020 8:30 a.m. The following defects are noted: Tissuesco’s default has not been entered.
Jul 31, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) Yes Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract To state a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)
Jul 26, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Such allegations could support a claim for breach of contract, but the Court requires Plaintiff to provide a copy of the written contract as an attachment to the complaint because in other parts of the FAC, Plaintiff also alleges oral agreements and that the contract required Venice Ventures to “expeditiously obtain the Certificate of Occupancy,” which is not contained within the quoted portion of the contract. (See FAC ¶ 15.)
Jul 26, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally, the statute of limitations for a negligent misrepresentation claim is two years. (Ventura County National Bank v. Macker (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1529.) This is so because negligent misrepresentation “more closely resembles” negligence than fraud. (Id. at p. 1531.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges the representations were made in September 2016 (FAC ¶ 71), but he did not file this action until almost three years later, approximately one year past the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Jul 26, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”
Jul 26, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to file his claims for (1) intentional misrepresentation on or before December 31, 2018 (three-year statute of limitations, per Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d)), (2) negligent misrepresentation on or before December 31, 2017 (two-year statute of limitations, per Code Civ. Proc., § 339), (3) intentional interference with contractual relations on or before December 31, 2017 (two-year statute of limitations, per Code Civ.
Jul 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Meet and Confer At the outset, the Court notes that Defendant failed to file a declaration describing the meet-and-confer efforts which are required by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3).) The purpose of the meet-and-confer requirement is to determine whether the parties can reach an agreement as to the issues raised in the motion.
Jul 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Next, attorneys’ fees may only be awarded where they are authorized by statute or contract. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify a basis for an award of attorneys’ fees.
Jul 25, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
An award of attorney’s fees is proper when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (b), 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Plaintiff asserts she is entitled to attorney’s fees under her written lease agreement, but Plaintiff fails to provide the contract or the attorney’s fees provision. Where a claim is based on a written contract, “the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference.”
Jul 24, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) See Above Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I.
Jul 23, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s claim against Triple 8 Restaurant, LLC for breach of contract alleges that Triple 8 Restaurant, LLC, the tenant, breached the lease agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Kwan and Moy for breach of lease and personal guaranty of lease, alleges that Defendants Kwan and Moy breached their guaranty of lease with Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶¶ 22-37.)
Jul 23, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint sets forth causes of action for breach of contract and legal malpractice and arises out of Murphy’s representation of Nauta in connection with a pending foreclosure. On October 15, 2019, Murphy responded by filing a Motion for Change of Venue, which the Court granted on December 18, 2019. Nauta did not appear at the hearing. At the Court’s direction, Murphy mailed Nauta a Notice of Ruling that same day. Murphy then forwarded to Nauta a signed Order After Hearing on January 16, 2020.
Jul 22, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field – BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ).
Jul 21, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
The plain wording of the statute requires the trial court to base the fee award on actual time expended on the case, as long as such fees are reasonably incurred – both from the standpoint of time spent and the amount charged. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of Cal., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817.)
Jul 20, 2020
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
