delayed discovery rule in California

2026Thus, the Superior Court properly sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC.” Kaweah Home Health adds: “Appellant’s argument that the Superior Court erred by failing to apply the delayed discovery rule because Appellant did not discover the second wound until July 20, 2020, is contrary to the record, unpersuasive, and nonsensical[;] [the court] clearly took this date into account.” Kaweah Home Health points to the following portion of the court’s ruling: “ ‘Here, the amended complaint indicates that [Richardson] possessed at least the “suspicion of wrongdoing” by July 20, 2020… The initial com

2025(Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806 (Fox).) An exception to this rule is the discovery rule, also known as the delayed discovery rule, “which postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.” (Id. at p. 807.) “[T]he discovery rule most frequently applies when it is particularly difficult for the plaintiff to observe or understand the breach of duty, or when the injury itself (or its cause) is hidden or beyond what the ordinary person could be expected to understand.” (Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Ca

2026So long as a suspicion exists, it is clear that the plaintiff must go find the facts; [it] cannot wait for the facts to find [it].’ ” (People v. Experian Data Corp., 16 supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at p. 808, quoting Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1109 .) “[T]he discovery rule most frequently applies when it is particularly difficult for the plaintiff to observe or understand the breach of duty, or when the injury itself (or its cause) is hidden or beyond what the ordinary person could be expected to understand.” (Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1248 .) “When a plaintiff

2025The Delayed Discovery Rule Traditionally, a claim accrues “‘“when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 815 .) “This is [known as] the ‘last element’ accrual rule . . . .” (Aryeh, at p. 1191; see ibid. 7 [“ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action’”]; Howard Jarvis, at p. 815 [same].) An exception to the gene

2026“The statute of limitations usually commences when a cause of action ‘accrues,’ and it is generally said that ‘an action accrues on the date of injury.’ [Citation.] … These 49. general principles have been significantly modified by the common law ‘discovery rule,’ which provides that the accrual date may be ‘delayed until the plaintiff is aware of her injury and its negligent cause.’ ” (Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 931 , italics added; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383 , 397–398; Lyles, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 287 [“The plaintiff need only be aware

2025So long as a suspicion exists, it is clear that the plaintiff must go find the facts; she cannot wait for the facts to find her.” (Jolly, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1111 ; accord, Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 398 [once on inquiry notice the plaintiff “must indeed seek to learn the facts necessary to bring the cause of action in the first place”].) To defeat a demurrer by relying on the delayed discovery rule, a plaintiff “‘must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’ [C

2018Then, finding that Classic stood in a fiduciary relationship with Eleanor Licensing and Halicki with respect to delivery of title to the sample car, the court ruled the delayed discovery rule articulated by this court in April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805 , 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 applied and Classic's breach of the license agreement had occurred in secret, so that the limitations period for *608 Eleanor Licensing and Halicki's claims did not begin to run until the sample car was seized and impounded by the LAPD at the urging of Classic.

2018Then, finding that Classic stood in a fiduciary relationship with Eleanor Licensing and Halicki with respect to delivery of title to the sample car, the court ruled the delayed discovery rule articulated by this court in April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805 , 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 applied and Classic's breach of the license agreement had occurred in secret, so that the limitations period for *608 Eleanor Licensing and Halicki's claims did not begin to run until the sample car was seized and impounded by the LAPD at the urging of Classic.

2026(See Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 42 ; see also Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 181, 193 [application of the delayed discovery rule is generally a question of fact, properly decided as a matter of 23 law only if the allegations in the complaint and facts subject to judicial notice can support only one reasonable conclusion].) III.

2023The Delayed Discovery Rule “The limitations period, the period in which a plaintiff must bring suit or be barred, runs from the moment a claim accrues. [Citations.] Traditionally at common law, a ‘cause of action accrues “when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’ [Citation.] This is the ‘last element’ accrual rule: ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpay

2004The rule has been applied as well in certain cases arising from contract, such as breaches committed in secret and without immediately discoverable harm (April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 832 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]), negligent breach of contract to ship personal goods (Allred v. Bekins Wide World Van Services (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 984, 991 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 312 ]), and negligent breach of contract to conduct termite inspection (Seelenfreund v. Terminix of Northern Cal., Inc. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 133, 136-139 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 307 ]).” (Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d

2004The rule has been applied as well in certain cases arising from contract, such as breaches committed in secret and without immediately discoverable harm (April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 832 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]), negligent breach of contract to ship personal goods (Allred v. Bekins Wide World Van Services (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 984, 991 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 312 ]), and negligent breach of contract to conduct termite inspection (Seelenfreund v. Terminix of Northern Cal., Inc. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 133, 136-139 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 307 ]).” (Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d

2016(Leaf, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d at p. 407 .) To invoke the delayed discovery rule, the plaintiff must “specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.

2015(Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 398, 407 .) To invoke the delayed discovery rule, the plaintiff must “specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.

2023Co. of America (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 912, 921 .) Conflating the rules for demurring based on an affirmative defense—matters on the face of the complaint or subject to judicial notice must clearly bar recovery—and those for pleading the applicability of the delayed discovery rule, Anvary erroneously contends, because the date of her discovery of the facts underlying her claims was not directly alleged in the first amended complaint, the demurrers based on the statute of limitations should have been denied.

2021Co. of America (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 912, 921 .) On the record before us, the delayed discovery rule may apply to preserve IAHL’s breach of contract claim.

2022Second, application 6 of the delayed discovery doctrine requires appellants to show “ ‘ “the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” ’ ” (Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 623, 638 .) Appellants have made no showing they used reasonable diligence but still could not have discovered earlier that LADWP maintained the electrical lines.

2017The section sets "the time for commencement of the action" by reference to "the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse...." ( Id. , subd. (a).) This is the language of delayed discovery-the " 'most important' " exception to the ordinary rule that a " 'cause of action ordinarily accrues when ... the wrongful act is done and the obligation or liability arises....' " ( Brisbane Lodging, L.P. v. Webcor Builders, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1249 , 1257, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d

2023(Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807 (Fox); see Gryczman v. 4550 Pico Partners, Ltd. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (Gryczman) [delayed discovery rule applies to breach of contract causes of action where the harm is difficult to detect, and the defendant is in a superior position to comprehend the breach and the harm].) “A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action 13 when he or she ‘has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for its elements.’ ” (Fox, at p. 807.) Put another way, the delayed “discovery rule only delays accrual until the plaintiff has, or shou

2023(Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807 (Fox); see Gryczman v. 4550 Pico Partners, Ltd. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (Gryczman) [delayed discovery rule applies to breach of contract causes of action where the harm is difficult to detect, and the defendant is in a superior position to comprehend the breach and the harm].) “A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action 13 when he or she ‘has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for its elements.’ ” (Fox, at p. 807.) Put another way, the delayed “discovery rule only delays accrual until the plaintiff has, or shou

2017K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 erroneously concluded that section 340.1 affected the accrual date of a claim for childhood sexual abuse, and that the delayed discovery doctrine made the late claim timely. ( K.J. , at pp. 1233, 1241-1244, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) We disapprove K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. , supra , 172 Cal.App.4th 1229 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.

2017K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 erroneously concluded that section 340.1 affected the accrual date of a claim for childhood sexual abuse, and that the delayed discovery doctrine made the late claim timely. ( K.J. , at pp. 1233, 1241-1244, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 .) We disapprove K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. , supra , 172 Cal.App.4th 1229 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion.

2025The Delayed Discovery Rule Traditionally, a claim accrues “‘“when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 815 .) “This is [known as] the ‘last element’ accrual rule . . . .” (Aryeh, at p. 1191; see ibid. 7 [“ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action’”]; Howard Jarvis, at p. 815 [same].) An exception to the gene

2023The Delayed Discovery Rule “The limitations period, the period in which a plaintiff must bring suit or be barred, runs from the moment a claim accrues. [Citations.] Traditionally at common law, a ‘cause of action accrues “when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’ [Citation.] This is the ‘last element’ accrual rule: ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpay

2026(J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1 , 31 [“ ‘Under general agency principles, “an attorney is his client’s agent, and ... the agent’s knowledge is imputed to the principal even where ... the agent does not actually communicate with the principal, who thus lacks actual knowledge of the imputed fact.” ’ ”]; E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1319 [in the context of the delayed discovery rule, “it has long 19 been the rule in California that ‘notice to an agent is notice to the principal’ ”].) Defendants therefore offered evidence

2026Thus, the Superior Court properly sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC.” Kaweah Home Health adds: “Appellant’s argument that the Superior Court erred by failing to apply the delayed discovery rule because Appellant did not discover the second wound until July 20, 2020, is contrary to the record, unpersuasive, and nonsensical[;] [the court] clearly took this date into account.” Kaweah Home Health points to the following portion of the court’s ruling: “ ‘Here, the amended complaint indicates that [Richardson] possessed at least the “suspicion of wrongdoing” by July 20, 2020… The initial com

2022(Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 743 (Jordache).) However, “courts should sustain demurrers based on section 340.6 in appropriate circumstances.” (Croucier v. Chavos (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145 (Croucier).) “[I]f the undisputed facts do not leave any room for reasonable differences of opinion, the question of when ‘a plaintiff reasonably should have discovered facts for purposes of the accrual of a cause of action or application of the delayed discovery rule . . .’ should be decided as a matter of law, by evaluating the allegations in ligh

2013The cases cited by defendants do not persuade us otherwise: Defendants rely upon Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1988) 18 Cal.4th 739 , 763 (Jordache), for the proposition that a malpractice claim does not necessarily accrue on entry of adverse judgment, dismissal or settlement of the underlying action and that the application of the delayed discovery rule makes the determination of accrual of a malpractice action an issue of fact.

2000The Court of Appeal upheld a defense summary judgment, finding the 1986 complaint to be untimely filed, since Miller became aware upon the occurrence of the 1983-1984 symptoms that it was the defendant’s negligence that had caused her “appreciable and actual harm.” (Miller v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 1624 .) The Court of Appeal did not apply the delayed discovery rule, even though the plaintiff argued that since she also subsequently suffered from immune dysregulation, that fact should give rise to a separate cause of action.

1996(Davies v. Krasna, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 512 ; Miller v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1622 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 ]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Actions, § 358, pp. 386-387.) From plaintiff’s own complaint and amended complaint, it is apparent that he suffered actual and appreciable harm when he was terminated in October 1992, and the delayed discovery rule is of no assistance to him.

2025The Delayed Discovery Rule Traditionally, a claim accrues “‘“when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 815 .) “This is [known as] the ‘last element’ accrual rule . . . .” (Aryeh, at p. 1191; see ibid. 7 [“ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action’”]; Howard Jarvis, at p. 815 [same].) An exception to the gene

2023The Delayed Discovery Rule “The limitations period, the period in which a plaintiff must bring suit or be barred, runs from the moment a claim accrues. [Citations.] Traditionally at common law, a ‘cause of action accrues “when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’ [Citation.] This is the ‘last element’ accrual rule: ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpay

2014Section 340.6, subdivision (a) uses the phrase, “after *680 the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission.” This delayed discovery rule is premised on the holding in Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ], in which the court concluded “the statute of limitations for legal malpractice, as for all professional malpractice, should be tolled until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action.” (Id. at p. 179; see Laird v

2014Section 340.6, subdivision (a) uses the phrase, “after *680 the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission.” This delayed discovery rule is premised on the holding in Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ], in which the court concluded “the statute of limitations for legal malpractice, as for all professional malpractice, should be tolled until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action.” (Id. at p. 179; see Laird v

2024(See Holman v. County of Butte (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 189 , 192– 193, 198 [allegations that victim “ ‘was suffering from trauma induced amnesia, as diagnosed by his mental health treatment provider,’ ” and the “ ‘trauma induced amnesia prevented him from remembering the consistent and repeated abuse that he suffered at the hands of his father and mother years earlier’ ” was sufficient to invoke delayed discovery]; cf. DeRose v. Carswell (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1011, 101812 [“If [plaintiff] could and did allege that she repressed her memories of the sexual assaults until one year before filing her

2023The Delayed Discovery Rule “The limitations period, the period in which a plaintiff must bring suit or be barred, runs from the moment a claim accrues. [Citations.] Traditionally at common law, a ‘cause of action accrues “when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’ [Citation.] This is the ‘last element’ accrual rule: ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpay

2016The Legislature plainly expressed that its purpose in enacting section 340.8 was to incorporate the two-year limitations period of section 335.1 for toxic exposure cases, to codify the delayed discovery rule for those cases, and to disapprove the holding in McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 151 .

2016The Legislature said it intended to disapprove the holding in McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 645 ] (media reports establish inquiry notice), and to codify the delayed discovery rule as described in Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79 ]; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 658 , 751 P.2d 923 ]; and Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1048 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 223 ], (Legis.

2024Proc., § 338, subd. (d); Miller, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 875 .)6 As noted above, even under the delayed discovery rule the statute of limitations “begin[s] to run when the plaintiff has a ‘suspicion of wrongdoing’; in other words, when he or she has notice of information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry.” (Brandon G., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 35 .) SGR and Romero argue that under the delayed discovery rule the three-year limitations period “began to accrue on July 18, 2019— the date the DRE officially determined that SGR did not have the proper insurance coverage . . .

2022Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d), which “effectively codifies the delayed discovery rule in connection with actions for fraud” (Brandon G. v. Gray (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 29, 35 ), is still subject to the general rule that “discovery” is not limited to actual discovery.

2015Ins. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 674, 686-687 [delayed discovery of 6 insured loss].) 6 Santa Fe does not cite April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d 805 or other decisions that have applied its reasoning and does not argue the breach of 13 As the Supreme Court explained in Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797 (Fox), the delayed discovery rule charges plaintiffs with presumptive knowledge of an injury if they have “‘“‘information of circumstances to put [them] on inquiry’”’” or if they have “‘“‘the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to [

2002In Prudential-LMI the court specifically held “ ‘inception of the loss’ should be determined by reference to reasonable discovery of loss and not necessarily turn on the occurrence of the physical event causing the loss.” (Prudential-LMI, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 686 , italics added.) The court’s opinion makes plain its definition of “inception of the loss” is based on the standard form language in section 2071, which is incorporated into all fire insurance policies: “California law supports the application of the following delayed discovery rule for purposes of the accrual of a cause of action

2014"For the purpose of computing the time limits prescribed by Sections 911.2, 911.4, 945.6, and 946.6, the date of the accrual of a cause of action to which a claim relates is the date upon which the cause of action would be deemed to have accrued within the meaning of the statute of limitations which would be applicable thereto if there were no requirement that a claim be presented to and be acted upon by the public entity before an action could be commenced thereon." (§ 901; see also John R., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 444, fn. 3 .) "A civil cause of action for child molestation generally accrues

2014“For the purpose of computing the time limits prescribed by Sections 911.2, 911.4, 945.6, and 946.6, the date of the accrual of a cause of action to which a claim relates is the date upon which the cause of action would be deemed to have accrued within the meaning of the statute of limitations which would be applicable thereto if there were no requirement that a claim be presented to and be acted upon by the public entity before an action could be commenced thereon.” (§ 901; see John R., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 444, fn. 3 .) “A civil cause of action for child molestation generally accrues at th

2016The delayed discovery rule does not apply.” (WA Southwest, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 157 .) We agree with the WA Southwest case’s discussion that the existence of alleged fiduciary relationships does not give Plaintiffs in this case a free pass with respect to the statute of limitations. “‘Where a fiduciary obligation is present, the courts have recognized a postponement of the accrual of the cause of action until the beneficiary has knowledge or notice of the act constituting a breach of fidelity. [Citations.] The existence of a trust relationship limits the duty of inquiry.

2016The delayed discovery rule does not apply.” (WA Southwest, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 157 .) 19 We agree with the WA Southwest case’s discussion that the existence of alleged fiduciary relationships does not give Plaintiffs in this case a free pass with respect to the statute of limitations. “‘Where a fiduciary obligation is present, the courts have recognized a postponement of the accrual of the cause of action until the beneficiary has knowledge or notice of the act constituting a breach of fidelity. [Citations.] The existence of a trust relationship limits the duty of inquiry.

2007(Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176, 186, 194 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ] (Neel); Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200-201 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 491 P.2d 433 ] (Budd); see Laird , at p. 611.) As we then recognized, however, this delayed discovery rule placed “an increased burden upon the legal profession,” having as one undesirable consequence the subjecting of attorneys to open-ended liability: “An attorney’s error may not work damage or achieve discovery for many years after the act, and the extension of liability into the future poses a disturbing p

2007(Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176, 186, 194 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 837 , 491 P.2d 421 ] (Neel); Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200-201 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 491 P.2d 433 ] (Budd); see Laird , at p. 611.) As we then recognized, however, this delayed discovery rule placed “an increased burden upon the legal profession,” having as one undesirable consequence the subjecting of attorneys to open-ended liability: “An attorney’s error may not work damage or achieve discovery for many years after the act, and the extension of liability into the future poses a disturbing p

2025A claim related to a cause of action for wrongful death against a public entity “shall be presented . . . not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (§ 911.2, subd. (a).) The accrual date is the date on which the cause of action would have accrued under the statute of limitations that would have applied had there been no requirement to present a claim to the public entity before suing it. (§ 901; Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 63 .) For a wrongful death cause of action, “at least as a usual matter, the date of accrual . . . is the date of d

2023Delayed Discovery “The question [of] when a plaintiff actually discovered or reasonably should have discovered the facts for purposes of the delayed discovery rule is a question of fact unless 17. the evidence can support only one reasonable conclusion.” (Ovando v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 61 .) In cases involving breach of a fiduciary relationship, “the burden typically falls on the plaintiff to ‘plead facts sufficient to convince the trial judge that delayed discovery was justified.

2025The failure to plead all necessary facts leaves the complaint vulnerable to a demurrer and dismissal as a matter of law.4 ( Fox, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 808.; Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 174 .) We find that the delayed discovery rule does not apply in this case.

2022(Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 174 ; Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1533 .) 38 The delayed discovery rule may be expressed by the Legislature or implied by the courts.

2014In addition, the record shows that both of J.J.'s parents attended and spoke at R.L.'s sentencing in early March 2011. 11 Even if we assume there was evidence in the record showing J.J. at the time of the molestations (i.e., between July & September 2009) lacked a real awareness that R.L.'s sexual abuse was "wrong" (see Curtis T., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423 ) and thus that she had been "injured" (see Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 398, 406 (Leaf) [applying delayed discovery rule]), and even if we conclude the delayed discovery rule applies to her situation, we nonethele

2014Even if we assume there was evidence in the record showing J.J. at the time of the molestations (i.e., between July and Sept. 2009) lacked a real awareness that RJL.’s sexual abuse was “wrong” (Curtis I, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423 ) and thus that she had been “injured” (Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 398, 406 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 711 ] (Leaf) [applying delayed discovery rule]), and even if we conclude the delayed discovery rule applies to her situation, we nonetheless are constrained to conclude that J.J.’s cause of action for personal injuries accrued at the latest in early

2025The Delayed Discovery Rule Traditionally, a claim accrues “‘“when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1191 ; accord, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 815 .) “This is [known as] the ‘last element’ accrual rule . . . .” (Aryeh, at p. 1191; see ibid. 7 [“ordinarily, the statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action’”]; Howard Jarvis, at p. 815 [same].) An exception to the gene

2024To do so, Abel must “ ‘specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’ ” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 808 .) Abel bears the burden to “ ‘show diligence’; ‘conclusory allegations will not withstand [a subsequent] demurrer.’ ” (Ibid.) Given the specificity of Abel’s proffered allegations on appeal, we are convinced that Abel has a reasonable possibility of amending his pleading to establish a fact-issue based on the delayed discovery rule, which would nullify s