Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Districtgreen2 sentences2024We disagree that there was a triable question as to the first element—timely notice to Khorsandi—and thus need not consider whether appellants met the remaining requirements. “ ‘ “The timely notice requirement [for equitable tolling] essentially means that the first claim must have been filed within the statutory period . . . [and that] the filing of the first claim must alert the defendant in the second claim of the need to begin investigating the facts which form the basis for the second claim.” ’ ” (McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 102, fn. 2 (McDona 2016Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.” [Citation.] “The second prerequisite essentially translates to a requirement that the facts of the two claims be identical or at least so similar that the defendant’s investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.” [Citation.]’” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102, fn. 2 , quoting Downs v. Department of Water & Power (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1100 .) A “first claim” sufficient to toll the limitations period can occur in many procedural forums, inc | 5 | 6 |
Collier v. City of Pasadenagreen2 sentences2015Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.” (Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924 (Collier).) Second, there must be a lack of prejudice to the defendant. 2013Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.” ‟ ” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102, fn 2 , quoting Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924 .) Bain promptly filed his claim with the Labor Commissioner 11 days after he resigned, well within the limitations period, and the defendants in both the administrative action and the judicial action were the same. | 2 | 7 |
Nichols v. Canoga Industriesgreen1 sentence2016Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.” [Citation.] “The second prerequisite essentially translates to a requirement that the facts of the two claims be identical or at least so similar that the defendant’s investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.” [Citation.]’” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102, fn. 2 , quoting Downs v. Department of Water & Power (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1100 .) A “first claim” sufficient to toll the limitations period can occur in many procedural forums, inc | 1 | 1 |
Marcario v. County of Orangegreen1 sentence2016(Marcario v. County of Orange (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 397, 407-409 [equitable tolling applied when union employee pursued grievance procedure specified in the union’s memorandum of understanding with employer].) Invocation of an informal workplace complaint procedure also may constitute a “first claim” when the applicable statute of limitations is intended to promote the resolution of such complaints. ( McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 106-111 [employee’s internal discrimination complaint against her employer equitably tolled her claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FE | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Addison v. State of California
green
2 sentences2014But in Addison v. State of California [(1978)] 21 Cal.3d 313 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ] [,] the Supreme Court did stress that the plaintiff filed his second claim a short time after tolling ended.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (McDonald, supra, at p. 102, fn. 2 .) *748 Finally, the Supreme Court has instructed that “courts . . . have, and should, ‘liberally appl[y] tolling rules or their functional equivalents to situations in which the plaintiff has satisfied the notification purpose of a limitations statute.’ [Citation.]” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102 .) 2. 2014But in Addison v. State of California [(1978)] 21 Cal.3d 313 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ] [,] the Supreme Court did stress that the plaintiff filed his second claim a short time after tolling ended.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (McDonald, supra, at p. 102, fn. 2 .) *748 Finally, the Supreme Court has instructed that “courts . . . have, and should, ‘liberally appl[y] tolling rules or their functional equivalents to situations in which the plaintiff has satisfied the notification purpose of a limitations statute.’ [Citation.]” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102 .) 2. | 5 | 1997–2014 |
Downs v. DEPT. OF WATER & POWER OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES
green
2 sentences2016Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.” [Citation.] “The second prerequisite essentially translates to a requirement that the facts of the two claims be identical or at least so similar that the defendant’s investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.” [Citation.]’” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102, fn. 2 , quoting Downs v. Department of Water & Power (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1100 .) A “first claim” sufficient to toll the limitations period can occur in many procedural forums, inc 2008But in Addison v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d 313 [,] the Supreme Court did stress that the plaintiff filed his second claim a short time after tolling ended.’ (Id. at p. 926.)” (Downs v. Department of Water & Power, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1100 .) All further unlabeled statutory references are to the Government Code. | 2 | 2008–2016 |
Elkins v. Derby
green
1 sentence2016Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.” [Citation.] “The second prerequisite essentially translates to a requirement that the facts of the two claims be identical or at least so similar that the defendant’s investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.” [Citation.]’” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102, fn. 2 , quoting Downs v. Department of Water & Power (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1100 .) A “first claim” sufficient to toll the limitations period can occur in many procedural forums, inc | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Anderson v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation 2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners
green
2 sentences2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation 2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation | 1 | 2007–2007 |
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
red
2 sentences2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation 2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Baillargeon v. Dep't of Water & Power of L.A.
green
2 sentences2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation 2007Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 .) More to the point, under California law, a claimant's resort to one administrative remedy can equitably toll the time to pursue another. ( Barth v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 755 [time to file an application for service connected disability equitably tolled by workers' compensation proceedings]; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal. App.3d at pp. 926-935, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 [time to file disability claim with city tolled by worker's compensation | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.' ( Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at p. 924 , 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 .) `The second prerequisite essentially translates to a requirement that the facts of the two claims be identical or at least so similar that the defendant's investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.' ( Id. at p. 925, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 .)" Equitable tolling principles, albeit materially more circumscribed than those applicable under state law, apply to the filing of 2007Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the same one being sued in the second.' ( Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at p. 924 , 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 .) `The second prerequisite essentially translates to a requirement that the facts of the two claims be identical or at least so similar that the defendant's investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly defend the second.' ( Id. at p. 925, 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 .)" Equitable tolling principles, albeit materially more circumscribed than those applicable under state law, apply to the filing of | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.