In Shalabi v. City of Fontana, published July 12, 2021, the California Supreme Court affirmed a lower appellate court's decision that a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit against the defendant city was filed within the statute of limitations. The plaintiff alleged that on May 14, 2011, a city police officer wrongfully shot and killed the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff was a minor at the time. The minor's 18th birthday was December 3, 2011. The minor filed suit December 3, 2013. The trial court held a bifurcated bench trial on whether the suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The trial court concluded that the minor filed the suit one day late. Although the statute of limitations was tolled while the plaintiff was a minor, the trial court relied on the unpublished California Supreme Court decision in Ganahl I, which included the date the minor plaintiff in that case reached the age of majority in calculating when the statute of limitations period commenced after tolling during minority ended. The appellate court reversed, holding that the minor's 18th birthday should have been excluded in calculating when tolling ended and the statute of limitations began.
The California Supreme Court agreed. State law controls tolling of the statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 352(a), when a minor is injured, the statute of limitations is tolled until the minor turns 18. Code of Civil Procedure section 12 sets forth the ordinary rule for computing time. Under it, the time within which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last (unless the last day is a holiday). A uniform rule governing the method of computing time promotes clarity and stability. A case will not be
found to come under an exception to the general rule unless there is a clear expression of provision for a different method of computation. There is no such expression concerning minors. The Ganahl I case is not binding authority, because there was an in-bank decision after it; and it is not persuasive authority. Because the plaintiff's December 3, 2011 birthday was included in the tolling period, the lawsuit brought December 3, 2013 was timely.
Comments