Orr

Orr v. City of Stockton

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 622·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 688·58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4983
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 2007C050196California4,582 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

In this appeal, we conclude that the filing of a petition to perpetuate testimony or preserve evidence under Code of Civil Procedure section 2035.010 et seq. does not constitute the filing of a “suit” for purposes of satisfying the six-month statute of limitations set forth in Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a)(1), of the California Tort Claims Act. (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.; hereafter, the Tort Claims Act.) Consequently, we reverse.

Background

On May 12, 2002, plaintiff Paul Orr (Orr) was involved in an automobile collision with a City of Stockton (City) police officer who was driving a patrol car.

On October 16, 2002, Orr filed a petition to perpetuate testimony and/or preserve evidence (Petition to Preserve Evidence or Petition) related to the collision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2035.010 et seq.; formerly, the substantively identical Code Civ. Proc., § 2035.) Orr sought evidence of police radio communications around the time of the collision. A hearing on the Petition was slated for November 26, 2002. Orr took the Petition off calendar, without prejudice, after the City agreed to provide Orr the requested information (the City provided this information on…

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.