California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1783 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any action brought under the specific provisions of Section 1770 shall be commenced not more than three years from the date of the commission of such method, act, or practice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
Asghari v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (C.D. Cal. 2013). “CAL. CIV. CODE § 1783. Defendants argue that the limitations peri *1319 od on plaintiffs’ CLRA claims began to run on the date they purchased or leased their vehicles from an authorized Volkswagen/Audi dealer.”
Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 284 F.R.D. 504 (C.D. Cal. 2012). “Consequently, the court concludes that any potential differences in state law concerning the proof of reliance that is necessary to prevail on consumer protection claims do not defeat predominance in this ease. Defendants also contend that differences in the states’ respective…”
Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “(a); Civ. Code, § 1783.) 10 Leatherman asked that we take judicial notice of various newspaper articles concerning its tools “in support of the factual proposition that Leatherman tools have gained acclaim for their quality and utility.”
Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1783. The statute of limitations for a claim sounding in fraud is similarly three years and “is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting fraud or mistake.”
Magno v. The Coll. Network CA4/1, 1 Cal. App. 5th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “The provision requires claims to be filed within one year of accrual. By contrast, plaintiffs’ unfair competition law claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations (Bus.”
Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “Statute of Limitations Finally, defendants maintain that Ries’s claims under the CLRA and FAL are barred by a three year statute of limitations. The CLRA provides that “[a]ny action brought under the specific provisions of section 1770 shall be commenced not more than three…”
Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consum. Companies, Inc., 317 F.R.D. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “§ 338(a); Cal. Civ. Code § 1783 . The statute of limitations for California UCL claims is four years.”
Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2005). “See First Amended Complaint ¶ 26. The CLRA provides that actions “shall be commenced not more than three years from the date of the commission” of a method, act or practice made unlawful by the act.”
Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1783 (setting a three-year statute of limitations for actions under the CLRA); Cal.”
Beasley v. Conagra Brands, Inc., 374 F. Supp. 3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2019). “§ 338(a) (three-year period for FAL); Cal. Civ. Code § 1783 (three-year period for CLRA); Cal.”
In Re Gen. Motors Corp. Anti-Lock Brake Prods. Liab. Lit., 966 F. Supp. 1525 (E.D. Mo. 1997). “See Cal. Civ.Code § 1783 (West, WESTLAW through 1995-96 Reg.”
Newton v. Am. Debt Servs., Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 712 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1783; Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17208; 15 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.