PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Summary Judgment & Summary Adjudication
......Moving Papers
.........Statute of Limitations
 12 Cards On This Topic:
  • Triable issue existed as to whether D attorneys continued to represent P during pendency of a settlement agreement in underlying action, so as to toll SOL in legal malpractice action.
  • Blue Shield properly denied SA where it drafted a more favorable SOL policy provision than Ins. Code's, thereby giving policyholder 3 yrs. to sue for tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
  • SJ for Atty proper where malpractice action barred by CCP 340.6 1-yr. SOL: Ps sustained actual injury when they had to pay new counsel to file underlying suit more than one year before they filed malpractice action.
  • Trial court erred in granting SJ for Ds on SOL grounds as question whether and when a reasonably prudent person would have suspected his injury and some wrongful cause was for trier of fact to decide.
  • As there were triable issues as to whether Diocese had notice that cleric accused of childhood sex abuse posed a risk of committing such acts, court erred in granting SJ for Diocese based on SOL bar.
  • Court properly awarded SJ to State Farm after determining opponent's cross-complaint, though sounding in tort, was actually an action on the policy that was barred by 1-year SOL.
  • D's SJ motion erroneously granted where P's faxed notice of intent to sue extended limitations period and complaint timely filed—trial court misconstrued CCP 364.
  • SJ improperly granted on SOL grounds to attorney who changed firms and still represented P on same matter; may still be liable for loss of P’s prom. note after change of firms.
  • SJ on SOL grounds improper where statute ran from time P discovered that her psychological illness as adult was caused by childhood sexual abuse, not from time she remembered some abuse.
  • SA for Ds appropriate where P’s claims barred by statute of limitations.
  • D entitled to SJ based on expiration of SOL where P’s amended complaint, filed after SOL expiration, did not relate back, as it alleged different cause of action.
  • Filing original action tolled running of statute of limitations as to D's cross-complaint, which violated SOL—D failed to file claim w/estate prior to decree of distribution.


    •