Chrustawka

Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services, Inc. v. Chrustawka

Good Law
160 Cal. App. 4th 754·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 300·73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 126
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 29, 2008G037240California3,109 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Defendants Bradley J. Chrustawka, Anjanette Chrustawka, nee Price (Price), and Katherine M. Matonic obtained summary adjudication of five causes of action on the grounds they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and were not tolled by Code of Civil Procedure section 351 (section 351). Because those were the only causes of action alleged against the latter two, the trial court entered judgment in their favor, leaving the action pending against Chrustawka only. Plaintiffs appeal, contending section 351 tolled the various limitations periods and entry of judgment was improper. We disagree and affirm.

During the pendency of the appeal, we received notice that plaintiff Stanley Norman filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. His appeal is severed and stayed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Stanley Norman and his son, Jeffrey Norman, own and run plaintiffs Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services, Inc., and Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services, a general partnership, both involved in the business of providing living trust services (collectively Heritage). Defendant Chrustawka was Heritage’s national managing director. Defendants Price and…

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.