Stacia Tatum v. Teresa Schwartz
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Stacia Tatum (“Tatum”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing Tatum’s claims of hostile work environment and retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 2000e(a)-(n).
The district court properly denied Tatum’s request to toll the statute of limitations by reason of insanity under Cal. Civ. Proc. § 352(a). For purposes of section 352(a), a plaintiff is “insane” if “incapable of caring for his [or her] property or transacting business or understanding the nature or effects of his [or her] acts.” Alcott Rehab. Hosp. v. Super. Ct., 93 Cal. App.4th 94 , 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 807, 812 (Cal.Ct.App.2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Pearl v. Pearl, 177 Cal. 303, 307 , 177 P. 845 (1918)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The facts demonstrate “lucid intervals”: Tatum filed her workers’ compensation claim, was deemed by a psychiatrist to be alert and oriented with normal affect, wrote a letter stating her desire “to return to work as soon as possible,” reported subsiding anxiety to an almost negligible level, and hired legal counsel. See Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hosp., 259 Cal.App.2d 562 , 66 Cal.Rptr. 659, 664-65 (Cal.Ct.App.1968).