Equitable Tolling An Exception To The Statue of Limitations
January 29th, 2012Exceptions To The Statue Of Limitations
The statue of limitation is the specific statute that sets the period of time when a person can bring an action as plaintiff. After the state of limitations the right to bring an action expires and the claimant cannot being a lawsuit. It is a rule that is almost set in stone. Generally speaking nothing can be done once the statute of limitations runs out, but there are a few exceptions. The exceptions are few and depending on discretion. There is no statute providing for a specific extension period. The amount of time by which a statue can be extended varies and whether or not the statute is extended depends on the sound discretion of the judge.
An exception to the statue of limitation is called equitable tolling. In equitable tolling the prospective plaintiff is allowed to commence an action past the statue of limitations. In John McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District, 45 Cal.4th 88, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 734 (2008), the court explained the principals of equitable tolling. In McDonald the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant community college district on the grounds that the claim was untimely under California Government Code Section 12900 et seq. The plaintiff argued equitable tolling, but the trial court held that equitable tolling was not available because procedure followed by plaintiff was voluntary and need not be exhausted before proceeding with a lawsuit. The court of appeal reversed holding that the traditional equitable tolling principles may apply to extend the state of limitations for filing a FEHA administrative complaint. The matter was appealed to the California Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that the statute is tolled.
The court explained that the equitable tolling of the statue of limitations is a judically created, nonstatutory doctrine. The court explained that the doctrine of equitable tolling is designed to prevent unjust and technical forfeitures of the right to a trial on the merits when the purpose of the statute of limitations has been satisfied. The legitimacy of the doctrine is unquestioned. It is a creature of the judiciary’s inherent power to formulate rules of procedure where justice demands it. The power is as old as the republic. The United States Supreme Court itself suspended the statute of limitations, because of the Revolutionary War.
Tolling the statute of limitations eases the pressure on parties concurrently seeking redress in two different forums with the danger of conflicting decisions on the same issue. By allowing the plaintiff eliminate the fear of claim forfeiture the plaintiff can pursue informal remedies, which are encouraged by the courts. The court explained that the tolling doctrine does not compromise defendants’ significant interest in being promptly apprised of claims against them in order that they may gather evidence. The notice interest is satisfied by the filing of the first proceeding that gives rise to tolling. The court system also prefers to encourage one filing instead of duplicate filings which increases costs and the potentially conflicting results.
The principal of equitable tolling is a not well known but available remedy to the statute of limitations running out.