Kendrick

Kendrick v. City of Eureka

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 573·2000 Daily Journal DAR 7969·82 Cal. App. 4th 364·98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 153·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6065
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 19, 2000A088104California3,095 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

Introduction

Appellants appeal from the dismissal of their action after respondents’ demurrer was sustained on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (3), had expired. Appellants argue that the statute of limitations was tolled by United States Code title 28, section 1367(d), while their claims were pending in federal court. They maintain that the trial court erred in concluding that section 1367(d) did not continue to toll the statute of limitations while they pursued a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. We conclude that section 1367(d) continues to toll the state statute of limitations during the federal appeal period provided as a matter of statutory right, but tolling ceases once the district court decision is affirmed by the federal appellate court. The state statute is unaffected by a later filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Because appellants failed to file their state complaint within 30 days of the federal Court of Appeals’s affirmance of the district court, their claims are untimely, and the trial court’s dismissal is…

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.