Pursuing a legal claim can be a race against time. Like other states, California has strict time limits and statutes of limitations for bringing a lawsuit. If you miss this window, you could lose your ability to access justice regardless of your case's merit. However, the clock does not always run uninterrupted. California law permits the "tolling" of the statute of limitations in some critical situations, which means the time limit is paused or suspended. It is important to understand these exceptions to the general rule when navigating civil litigation in California.

The information below addresses the five situations where the statute of limitations can be tolled and allows you to pursue your claim.

What Does a Statute of Limitations Mean?

While it is crucial to know the legal deadlines, it also helps to know when the deadlines are paused. In law, this means the statute of limitations is “tolled.” Simply put, the legal time limit for suing can be stopped or paused under certain circumstances. The clock does not run constantly when a cause of action arises. In certain circumstances, the clock will “freeze” for a while.

Statutes of limitations are the law's deadlines for bringing certain lawsuits. When the statute of limitations is tolled, the tolling period is added to the statutory period. For example, if a claim has a two-year statute of limitations and is tolled for six months, this essentially grants the plaintiff two years and six months from the original start date to file. This mechanism is crucial as it ensures potential plaintiffs do not lose their right to sue because of something beyond their reasonable control or in-law privileges.

However, tolling does not happen automatically. Tolling only applies when certain, specifically defined conditions or events set forth by California law occur. You should know these conditions so as to not lose the right to sue.

Since we now understand that the toll of a statute stops the legal clock, we can now review some specific instances recognized by California law.

  1. When the Claimant is a Minor (Under Age 18)

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 352(a) allows minors to file lawsuits after the statute of limitations has expired. It usually states that if a person entitled to action is a minor (under 18 years old) when the cause of action accrues, the statute of limitations is tolled.

This means the time limit to file a suit will not kick in until the child turns 18. For example, suppose a child is injured in a personal injury incident. In that case, the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury will usually not start until the 18th birthday of the child. They generally have two years from that date to bring suit, meaning their effective deadline is their 20th birthday.

A child will not lose any right of action because they are legally incapable of doing so because of their minority. When the child attains the age of 18, the period of minority rights ends, and the ordinary statute of limitations for the type of case begins to run.

There are exceptions to this rule, and medical malpractice cases are one of them. CCP § 340.5 provides more restrictive tolling rules for minors concerning injuries against a healthcare provider than the general rule in § 352(a). A minor in a medical malpractice case usually has to sue within three years of the alleged wrongful act or before the minor’s eighth birthday if under six at the time of injury. This limitation on medical malpractice indicates that it is best to consult an attorney to watch the expiry of a minor’s claim.

  1. When the Plaintiff is Mentally Incapable (Mentally Incompetent)

CCP § 352(a) also addresses cases where the plaintiff is legally mentally incapable. If the “person entitled to bring the action” is “insane” at the time, the cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations is tolled. The statute uses the term “insane,” but California courts have interpreted the “insanity” prerequisite to mean one of severe mental incapacity, the inability to understand the nature of one's rights, and the necessity of bringing the action.

The tolling period continues as long as the condition lasts. The statute of limitations will not begin to run until the person regains mental capacity. This provision aims to protect a person who cannot manage their property or is not aware that they have a right to sue due to a mental disorder.

Conditions that could allow for tolling include:

  • Severe dementia

  • Amentia

  • Any other debilitating disease that has rendered the individual legally incompetent

It is a legal question whether a person does not have the requisite mental capacity for a tolling purpose, and usually requires medical evidence that the person lacked the capacity. The tolling will continue while a person is continuously incapacitated, allowing that person to make the claim when capacity is restored or through a guardian or conservator appointed by the court.

  1. When the Suspect is Out of State (Not in California)

CCP § 351 stipulates that a defendant's absence from California may shorten the period of limitations on a claim. This law typically states that if a defendant is out of California when a cause of action accrues or establishes residency out of California after a cause of action accrues, their absence out of state does not count as part of the time limited for the commencement of the action. The clock for the statute of limitations stops during the defendant's absence.

The historical basis of CCP § 351 arises from the difficulty or impossibility of serving a defendant outside the state, which prevents a plaintiff from pursuing the lawsuit accordingly. The law aims to deter defendants from escaping liability by merely leaving California until the statute of limitations expires.

However, there are nuances in applying CCP § 351 and its limitations. As a result of the “long-arm” statutes (Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 413.10) and expanded methods of extraterritorial service of process, a defendant could often be served, even in the case of no physical presence in California, if they have minimum contacts. The state’s long-arm statute lets courts assert jurisdiction as long as it does not conflict with state or U.S. law. Constitutions generally allow service on out-of-state defendants.

The courts have wrestled with whether CCP § 351 still tolls the statute of limitations when the defendant is “absent” yet may be served outside the state. Some older cases rigidly applied the physical absence rule, for example, Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878). More recently, however, there have been challenges to CCP § 351’s application based on the U.S. Dormant Commerce Clause, especially in interstate commerce. Courts have ruled it unconstitutional for the state to apply Section 351 to a defendant’s absence if they did business within the state and were subject to service in the state. Specifically, it would place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

CCP § 351 can still be relevant in some situations, for instance, where the defendant's whereabouts are unknown, or in cases not arising out of interstate commerce, where the defendant is not otherwise subject to California’s jurisdiction through long-arm statutes. For example, suppose there is a dispute between two California residents. The defendant goes out of state for an extended period and is not readily locatable to be served.

In modern times, this rule often requires a careful examination of the facts and the nature of the defendant's absence and contacts with California.

  1. Fraudulent Concealment by the Defendant (Concealing the Wrongdoing)

The doctrine of fraudulent concealment helps plaintiffs overcome a statute of limitations bar to pursue lawsuits. It is closely related to the discovery rule. This rule, as a general matter, provides that the statute of limitations period does not start to run till the plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence exercises, should have discovered the injury and cause.

Fraudulent concealment is used when the defendant has taken active steps to hide from the plaintiff the facts that would lead to the plaintiff discovering his/her cause of action in time. This doctrine holds that a wrongdoer should not be able to take advantage of their deceitful conduct, which prevents the plaintiff from suing within the regular period.

To use fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the wrong. The plaintiff must show they did not know the cause of action despite using reasonable diligence. The plaintiff must use reasonable diligence in investigating the circumstances and cannot merely ignore suspicious facts. When a person fraudulently conceals facts, the statute of limitations is tolled until the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts hidden.

Examples of fraudulent concealment that would toll the statute of limitations include:

  • A contractor who hides structural defects in a building project that could not be revealed through a reasonably diligent inspection

  • A company that conceals defective product flaws that it knows present a dangerous risk, preventing consumers from understanding what caused their injuries.

In these instances, the statute of limitations could be delayed until the plaintiff reveals the hidden information.

The defendant must actively conceal something for it to be considered concealment. The simple act of silence or failing to disclose, without any duty to do so or any action taken to mislead, may not suffice to prove fraudulent concealment for tolling. The doctrine protects against defendants who try to run out the statute of limitations by tricking and deceiving plaintiffs, allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to sue once the deception is revealed.

  1. The Plaintiff Is Incarcerated

California law, CCP § 352.1, addresses the tolling of the statute of limitations for people in prison. If someone can sue but is in jail for a crime, they do not have to worry about the time limit for suing. The same is true if someone is sentenced to prison time but not for life. This rule applies as long as that person is in prison when the time limit starts.

This provision acknowledges the difficulties incarceration can cause a person’s ability to pursue a claim. The intention is to ensure imprisoned individuals can approach the courts despite realistic and legal barriers.

However, this tolling is not absolute or indefinite. CCP § 352.1 states that imprisonment cannot toll a time limit for longer than two years. As a result, while the statute of limitations is tolled during incarceration, the tolling effect ceases after the two-year period elapses, notwithstanding the continued imprisonment.

Also, the tolling rule has an important exception. According to CCP § 352.1, this tolling law does not apply to any case brought against a public entity or public employee based on a cause of action for which a claim must be presented under the Government Claims Act. Especially relevant to claims regarding prison conditions or actions of public employees in the correctional system, which will often have their own, much shorter, claims presentation requirements that do not benefit from this two-year toll.

CCP § 352.1 provides a limited tolling period for incarcerated plaintiffs sentenced to less than life, which allows them a maximum of two additional years to initiate their lawsuit. However, the tolling that applies to a prisoner’s claims does not apply to all. Most notably, it does not apply to claims against public entities or employees under the Government Claims Act.

Essential Considerations When Navigating Tolling

Navigating the statute of limitations tolling rules in California can be quite complex, as several important factors play a role. Knowing this is essential for anyone thinking about taking legal action.

To begin with, proving that a statute of limitations has been tolled squarely lies with you, the plaintiff. The plaintiff must affirmatively plead and prove that a tolling condition applies to their case and that they qualify for that tolling. It is not the defendant who shows that the time limit has expired.

Furthermore, tolling is not automatic. A plaintiff must plead a tolling provision and be ready to put up evidence to prove it, even if the tolling appears to apply to a situation. When a tolling is not raised correctly and proven, the case could be dismissed as untimely, even though it otherwise would have been valid.

Beyond the statutory grounds for tolling mentioned above, California also recognizes the concept of equitable tolling. This is a more flexible, court-created doctrine that can pause the statute of limitations in some situations to prevent injustice when the plaintiff has pursued in good faith one of several available remedies and the defendant has not been prejudiced. Nonetheless, equitable tolling is case-by-case and at the court’s discretion. It is not automatic.

The extreme importance of case-specific legal analysis cannot be overstated. The statute of limitations that will apply, and any possible tolling periods, are heavily dependent on:

  • The facts of the case

  • The type of claim

  • Who the parties are and

  • Potentially, where certain events occurred

It is crucial to consult with a qualified attorney to identify deadlines correctly, ascertain if any tolling provisions apply, and file a lawsuit on time. Not doing this may mean losing your right to make a claim forever.

Frequently Asked Questions Related to Tolling

If I File Suit and Find a Basis For Tolling Later, Can I Amend My Complaint?

You should be able to amend your complaint to assert facts and legal arguments relating to tolling that you discover after you have filed your suit. California civil procedure rules allow parties to amend their pleadings to account for new information or sharpen existing claims. The court could allow you to make changes, and the “relation back” issue is often crucial.

If the amendments that claim tolling arise out of the same general set of facts as the original complaint, they could “relate back” to the date of the original complaint so that the action can proceed even though the ordinary statute of limitations has since expired after the filing of the original complaint.

Do Tolling Laws Apply to All Deadlines in a Lawsuit, or Just The Filed Deadline?

Usually, the statute of limitations only tolls the first deadline that allows a complaint to start the lawsuit. While tolling extends the time to file a lawsuit, it does not usually extend or affect the deadlines during the following litigation.

After a lawsuit is filed and served, court rules, court orders, and the case's progress govern the timing of actions, including discovery, motions, expert witness disclosures, and the trial. Failing to comply with these internal litigation deadlines can have negative consequences, which may include:

  • The imposition of sanctions

  • The dismissal of some or all claims

  • The dismissal of the entire case itself, even if the complaint was properly filed on time due to tolling

Find a Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

The strict deadlines set forth under the statutes of limitations are essential. However, as we have seen, the law provides necessary protection to ensure fairness in certain situations. If you were a minor, an incompetent defendant out of state, wrongfully concealed, or jailed, this can all pause the clock and preserve your claim.

Demonstrating that tolling applies is not simple. It requires expertise in California law. It is not automatic, and exceptions exist. If you believe you have an opportunity to toll the statute of limitations for your personal injury case, do not wait. The nuances of these rules demand expert analysis. Contact The Personal Injury Attorney Law Firm today at 800-492-6718 to evaluate your case and ensure you do not lose the right to pursue your claim.