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 1990–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collier v. City of Pasadenagreen2 sentences1990Equitable tolling of a statute of limitations depends on a three-pronged test: “(1) timely notice to the defendant in filing the first claim; (2) lack of prejudice to defendant in gathering evidence to defend against the second claim; and, (3) good faith and reasonable conduct by the plaintiff in filing the second claim.” (Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 ]; Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 319 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]; fn. omitted.) The timely notice requirement includes the necessity that the first claim alert the 1990Equitable tolling of a statute of limitations depends on a three-pronged test: “(1) timely notice to the defendant in filing the first claim; (2) lack of prejudice to defendant in gathering evidence to defend against the second claim; and, (3) good faith and reasonable conduct by the plaintiff in filing the second claim.” (Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 ]; Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 319 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]; fn. omitted.) The timely notice requirement includes the necessity that the first claim alert the | 4 | 8 |
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 2020To satisfy timely notice, “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, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102, fn. 2 ; see also Elkins, supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 412, 417-418.) Here, a jury could reasonably conclude that Brome’s workers’ compensation claim put the Patrol on notice of his potential discrimination claims. | 4 | 5 |
Addison v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences1990Equitable tolling of a statute of limitations depends on a three-pronged test: “(1) timely notice to the defendant in filing the first claim; (2) lack of prejudice to defendant in gathering evidence to defend against the second claim; and, (3) good faith and reasonable conduct by the plaintiff in filing the second claim.” (Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 ]; Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 319 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]; fn. omitted.) The timely notice requirement includes the necessity that the first claim alert the 1990Equitable tolling of a statute of limitations depends on a three-pronged test: “(1) timely notice to the defendant in filing the first claim; (2) lack of prejudice to defendant in gathering evidence to defend against the second claim; and, (3) good faith and reasonable conduct by the plaintiff in filing the second claim.” (Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 681 ]; Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 319 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 578 P.2d 941 ]; fn. omitted.) The timely notice requirement includes the necessity that the first claim alert the | 2 | 2 |
Elkins v. Derbygreen2 sentences2020To satisfy timely notice, “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, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102, fn. 2 ; see also Elkins, supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 412, 417-418.) Here, a jury could reasonably conclude that Brome’s workers’ compensation claim put the Patrol on notice of his potential discrimination claims. 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 | 1 | 2 |
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 |
Apple Valley Unified School District v. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co.green1 sentence2016Under that doctrine, “‘“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 20 the second claim.”’” (McDonald, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 102 .) As noted in Apple Valley Unified School Dist. v. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 934, 954 (Apple Valley), the first claim is subject to “[t]he requirement that the alternative proceeding apprise the defendant of the nature of the claim and the plaintiff’s intent to litigate . . . .” Nothing in the Calderons’ request, as alleged in the FAC, would | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Downs v. DEPT. OF WATER & POWER OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES
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 |
Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange
green
2 sentences2014(See, e.g., Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 459 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 ] (Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc.) [concluding trial court properly determined that equitable tolling applied where subcontractor’s suit against general contractor put city on notice of facts that formed the basis for second action against city]; Stalberg v. Western Title Ins. 2014(See, e.g., Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 459 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 ] (Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc.) [concluding trial court properly determined that equitable tolling applied where subcontractor’s suit against general contractor put city on notice of facts that formed the basis for second action against city]; Stalberg v. Western Title Ins. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.