Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California

First of all, we're renters in Santa Monica, and have been in our unit since 1985. Our current landlord bought the property in 1997, and has been a thorn in our side since day one. She hates rent control-protected tenants! In August 2008, she served us with a UD lawsuit, attempting to evict us from our garage - not the entire apartment - without sufficient cause. Long story short - we won the case in November 2008, and she appealed. After several delays by her lawyer, the case finally went to oral argument in late June 2010, and just last week, September 21, 2010, we got the appeal decision: we prevailed again. The judgment isn't final until October 21, unless they successfully file another appeal, but the unanimous opinion in our favor left them little hope should they try.

So... as far as filing a wrongful eviction suit, are we too late with respect to the statute of limitations, or does the tolling begin when the appeal - or original case - is decided?

We have affirmative proof of a wrongful eviction under Santa Monica law (Rent Control Charter Regulation 1806(e)), but we're confused on which statue of limitation applies and when tolling began or begins. It appears that wrongful eviction falls under CCP 340, which is the 1-year SOL for action upon a statute for penalty or forfeiture. There is no specific SOL relating to wrongful eviction that I could find in either a state or local statute. I searched everywhere! I also saw that CCP 338 provides a 3-year SOL for an action on the ground of fraud or mistake; might that also apply in this case?

Under delayed discovery, "the limitations period does not begin to run until a plaintiff discovers, or could have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, all facts essential to plaintiff's cause of action." Based on that, had we brought a wrongful eviction suit prior to the appeal court's ruling, we would not have been in possession of ALL the facts essential to our case, i.e., whether or not it was a legal eviction, and in effect, would be asking that judge to try the first case while it was still in the system. No amount of diligence on our part could have produced the definitive fact we needed to proceed with a wrongful eviction. Isn't this a clear case of allowable delayed discovery? Shouldn't the tolling start when we actually possess the fact that it was a wrongful eviction, which is at the conclusion of the case?

What's our best course of action - file and fight the SOL if she brings it up?

Thanks for your help!


Asked on 9/29/10, 5:15 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

Until there is a final judgment of right or wrong in the underlying proceeding, you don't have a mature cause of action. So the SOL doesn't start until then.

Read more
Answered on 10/06/10, 9:08 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in California