Lee v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 848·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 444·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 496·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3819·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2996
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 4, 2003No. B155843California3,841 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Epstein, J.

The issue in this action for inverse condemnation and damage to property is when plaintiffs claims accrued. The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer and dismissed the action based on its conclusion that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq., Tort Claims Act).

We conclude the trial court erred. In an action for continuous and repeated damage to real property based on inverse condemnation and nuisance, the cause of action does not accrue until the situation has stabilized. The allegations of the third amended complaint are adequate to bring those claims within the stabilization rule. Tort claim deadlines applicable to the remaining tort causes of action alleged in the complaint also run from this date of accrual. Since the allegations of the third amended complaint do not clearly and affirmatively establish that the tort causes of action are barred, we reverse the order of dismissal.

Factual and Procedural Summary

We take our factual summary from the allegations of plaintiffs third amended complaint, the charging pleading. Defendant argues that plaintiff *851 purposely omitted…

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.