plaintiff occasioned bar in California

2003As they observe, two Court of Appeal decisions, Grange Debris, *663 supra, 16 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1360 , 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 515 , and Cascade Gardens, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1256-1258 , 240 Cal. Rptr. 113 , have concluded that the 10-year limitations period of section 337.15 is tolled while the defendant's promises or attempts to remedy the defect are pending.

2003As they observe, two Court of Appeal decisions, Grange Debris, *663 supra, 16 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1360 , 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 515 , and Cascade Gardens, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1256-1258 , 240 Cal. Rptr. 113 , have concluded that the 10-year limitations period of section 337.15 is tolled while the defendant's promises or attempts to remedy the defect are pending.

2003As they observe, two Court of Appeal decisions, Grange Debris, *663 supra, 16 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1360 , 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 515 , and Cascade Gardens, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1256-1258 , 240 Cal. Rptr. 113 , have concluded that the 10-year limitations period of section 337.15 is tolled while the defendant's promises or attempts to remedy the defect are pending.

2003As they observe, two Court of Appeal decisions, Grange Debris, *663 supra, 16 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1360 , 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 515 , and Cascade Gardens, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1256-1258 , 240 Cal. Rptr. 113 , have concluded that the 10-year limitations period of section 337.15 is tolled while the defendant's promises or attempts to remedy the defect are pending.

2021“As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the … limitations statute.” (Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 321 .) Moreover, equitable tolling should not apply if it is “inconsistent with the relevant statute.” (United States v. Beggerly (1998) 524 U.S. 38, 48 .) We give a broad reading to the elements of California’s equitable tolling doctrine, based on the policy

2021(See, e.g., Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 .) 3.

2020Leaning on our decision in McDonald, the Court of Appeal explained that “equitable tolling applies ‘ “ 14 SAINT FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J. ‘[w]hen an injured person has several legal remedies and, reasonably and in good faith, pursues one.’ ” ’ ” (Saint Francis, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 623 ; see also Hansen v. Board of Registered Nursing (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 664, 672 [equitable tolling available when “a party with multiple available remedies pursues one in a timely manner”].) Because “Saint Francis’s request for reco

2016Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 399 , the California Supreme Court held that equitable tolling may be applied when the plaintiff had been denied a trial on the merits, the plaintiff has timely pursued the legal claims, some technicality unrelated to the merits or not the plaintiff’s fault defeated the claims, and tolling would serve justice.

2016Courts created this doctrine “‘to prevent unjust and technical forfeitures of the right to a trial on the merits’” when needed “‘to ensure fundamental practicality and fairness.’” (McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 99 .) The equitable doctrine “operates independently of the language of the Code of Civil Procedure and other codified sources of statutes of limitations” and is “a creature of the judiciary’s inherent power “‘to formulate rules of procedure where justice demands it.’”” (Id. at pp. 99–100.) 7 Yet courts apply equitable tolling only in “careful

2012In considering the claim, the court noted, “The Legislature may preclude equitable tolling by stating its intention ‘to disallow tolling under any circumstances not enumerated in the statute.’ [Citations.] [¶] Moreover, equitable tolling should not apply if it is ‘inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute’ [citations] or contravenes clear legislative policy [citation], [¶] ‘As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the import

2012In considering the claim, the court noted, “The Legislature may preclude equitable tolling by stating its intention ‘to disallow tolling under any circumstances not enumerated in the statute.’ [Citations.] [¶] Moreover, equitable tolling should not apply if it is ‘inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute’ [citations] or contravenes clear legislative policy [citation], [¶] ‘As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the import

1984Of course, the complaint was based on new events, but these events are a continuation of the old cause of action. [Citation.]” (Supra, at pp. 1057-1058.) While unnecessary in light of our holding with respect to the relation back doctrine, we note that the doctrine of equitable tolling, which also requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public policy served by statutes of limitation (Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 321 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]), would likewise be applicable

1984Of course, the complaint was based on new events, but these events are a continuation of the old cause of action. [Citation.]” (Supra, at pp. 1057-1058.) While unnecessary in light of our holding with respect to the relation back doctrine, we note that the doctrine of equitable tolling, which also requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public policy served by statutes of limitation (Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 321 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]), would likewise be applicable

1984Of course, the complaint was based on new events, but these events are a continuation of the old cause of action. [Citation.]” (Supra, at pp. 1057-1058.) While unnecessary in light of our holding with respect to the relation back doctrine, we note that the doctrine of equitable tolling, which also requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public policy served by statutes of limitation (Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 321 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]), would likewise be applicable

1984Of course, the complaint was based on new events, but these events are a continuation of the old cause of action. [Citation.]” (Supra, at pp. 1057-1058.) While unnecessary in light of our holding with respect to the relation back doctrine, we note that the doctrine of equitable tolling, which also requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public policy served by statutes of limitation (Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 321 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]), would likewise be applicable

1978(See City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496-497 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]; Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 661 , 431 P.2d 245 ].) In our view, the balance in this case must be struck in plaintiffs’ favor.

1978(See City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496-497 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]; Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 661 , 431 P.2d 245 ].) In our view, the balance in this case must be struck in plaintiffs’ favor.