In Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State Department of Public Health, published June 29, 2020, the California Supreme Court reversed dismissal of an administrative mandamus petition after demurrer. The petitioner hospital administratively challenged a fine. The state served the hospital with its final decision upholding the fine. Two weeks later, the hospital filed a request for reconsideration. The hospital responded. The hospital's counsel wrote the state agency's counsel a letter requesting that the agency confirm the date the hospital believed was the deadline to decide the reconsideration request. The letter stated that the hospital intended to petition for writ of administrative mandate if reconsideration was denied. The agency's attorney wrote back that he believed the hospital's counsel was correct. The agency counsel did not mention that the statute of limitations for filing the writ petition began running when the decision issued, and had expired four days before the counsel sent the response letter. The agency denied the reconsideration request on the ground that the decision was final and not subject to reconsideration. The hospital then filed its petition, 41 days after the final decision. The agency demurred on the ground of Government Code section 11523, which is a statute of limitations that requires the petition to be filed within 30 days of the last date on which reconsideration can be ordered. The trial court sustained the demurrer, reasoning the hospital had miscalculated the deadline for filing the petition. The court of appeal affirmed. It ruled that under the circumstances, equitable tolling was not available.
The Supreme Court ruled that equitable tolling was available. There is a presumption that equitable tolling applies to a statute of limitations. Nothing in Government Code section 11523's text, legislative history, or policy precludes equitable tolling. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff must have pursued a viable alternative remedy to be entitled to equitable tolling. That is only one theory on which equitable tolling may be based. Instead, equitable tolling is available on a case-by-case basis if the policies behind the doctrine are met. To be entitled to equitable tolling, a plaintiff must establish timely notice to the defendant that the plaintiff will pursue the action; lack of prejudice to the defendant from tolling; and both objectively reasonable and subjectively good faith conduct by the plaintiff. The circumstances here established the first two elements. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeal to determine whether reasonable conduct and subjective good faith were present.
Comments