Update on Senate Bill 688
January 1, 2003
As we previously reported, Governor Davis has signed California State Senate Bill, SB 688 that, among other things, adds Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, which extends the statute of limitations for claims for assault, battery, and personal injury to or death of a person due to the wrongful act or neglect of another from one year to two years.While it is clear that the "effective" date of operation for section 335.1 is January 1, 2003, a question that remains is whether a plaintiff, whose injury occurred or whose claim "accrued" prior to January 1, 2003, is entitled to benefit of the extended statute of limitation.
While we anticipate that this issue will be litigated, and that a definitive answer will not be available until then, we are advising that the new, two year limitations period applies to all cases where (1) no complaint has been filed and (2) the one year statute of limitations would not have run as of January 1, 2003.
Our advice is premised on a body of case law that stands for the propositions that (1) statutes of limitation in civil matters are procedural, rather than substantive, changes and, (2) that an amendment which enlarges a period of limitation applies to pending matters where not otherwise expressly excepted.
As was explained by the Supreme Court in Mudd v. McColgan, 30 Cal.2d 463, 468 (1947):
- It is the settled law of this state that an amendment, which enlarges a period of limitation, applies to pending matters where not otherwise expressly excepted. Such legislation affects the remedy and is applicable to matters not already barred, without retroactive effect. Because the operation is prospective rather than retrospective, there is no impairment of vested rights. Moreover, a party has no vested right in the running of a statute of limitation prior to its expiration. He is deemed to suffer no injury if, at the time of an amendment extending the period of limitation for recovery, he is under obligation to pay.
See also, Society of California Pioneers v. Baker, 43 Cal.App.4th 774, 784 785 (1996) (as statute of limitations had not yet expired when Code of Civil section 338 was amended making the discovery rule the appropriate measure of accrual of appellant's cause of action, the new discovery rule applied to plaintiff's cause of action); Sanchez v. Aronson, 217 Cal.App.3d 346, 358 (1990) ("Before the limitation period remedy has expired, the Legislature may amend a particular statute so as to extend the time".); Aronson v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.3d 294, 297 (1987)("In general, statutes of limitation, being procedural, are retroactively applied to accrued causes of action").
Based on the above, there is a good chance that section 335.1 will be interpreted as meaning that, so long as a plaintiff's cause of action is less than one year old as of January 1, 2003, plaintiff will be entitled to use the new two year statute of limitations.
