Escamilla

Escamilla v. Vannucci

Good Law
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 20, 2025S282866California7,075 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J.

Code of Civil Procedure section 335.11 sets out a two-year statute of limitations for a variety of tort suits, including malicious prosecution. However, section 340.6 provides a one- year limitations period for certain suits brought against attorneys. Here, we decide which is the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action against an attorney. Based on the statutory text, purpose, and legislative history, we hold that section 340.6 does not apply to claims against attorneys brought by parties who were never their clients or the intended beneficiaries of their clients. Because the malicious prosecution claims here are brought by formerly adverse parties and not by an attorney’s own clients, they are not subject to the one-year limitations period in section 340.6.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Daniel Escamilla is a certified fugitive recovery agent. In September 2012, he searched the home of Lan Ting Wu and Andy Yu Feng Yang looking for Yang’s brother, who was wanted on felony drug trafficking charges. Yang, Wu, and their minor son later sued Escamilla, asserting claims for assault, battery, trespass, and false…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.