by Andy Chen | Jun 15, 2021 | California, Statutes... and stuff, Torts
Today’s post is going to be another short one. In it, I’m going to go over the statute of limitations for a wrongful death lawsuit in California state court. As a reminder, a “statute of limitations” is the time period within which a plaintiff wanting to file a civil lawsuit (e.g. seeking money) must do it in. If the plaintiff waits too long (e.g. even by one day), they will lose their lawsuit simply because they waited too long. The topic of wrongful death litigation can get complicated when you look at questions such as (1) who is an acceptable plaintiff in a wrongful death suit?, and (2) what damages can be recovered in a wrongful death suit? I’ll go over these questions in future posts, but for today’s post, I’m going to look at just the time element involved, namely the statute of limitations the plaintiff has to file their civil suit within. In California, the answer is two years. Under Section 335.1 of California’s Code of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff in a wrongful death lawsuit must file that suit within two years of the date the death in question occurs. Section 335.1 itself says the following: “Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.” Two years, however, is the general rule of thumb to remember. However, as with many things in law, exceptions can exist which may make the actual statute of limitations in your case shorter than two years. If that applies in your situation, you obviously...
by Andy Chen | Jun 10, 2021 | California, Torts
Here’s another installment of my series of posts on the Statute of Limitations. Today, I’m going to go over the tort of Conversion under California law. As background, “conversion” is a fancy way of saying that a person (i.e. the defendant) has interfered without consent with the plaintiff’s ability to use their property by, for instance, (1) preventing plaintiff from having access to it, or (2) destroying it. The term arises because the defendant has taken plaintiff’s property and converted it — hence, “conversion” — to the defendant’s own use. If that definition makes sense, you might be asking “Andy, how is this different from theft?” There are at least two answers to that question: First, in California, “theft” is a crime. See, for example, Sections 484 and 487 of the California Penal Code. California further divides “theft” into two degrees based on the dollar value of what was taken. Under Section 486 of the California Penal Code, if it’s under $950, then it’s “petty theft,” but if it’s over $950, then it’s “grand theft”. Second, the crime of theft fundamentally involves the taking of property. This taking may involve fraud or deception, but it doesn’t have to. Taking property, though, is only one way in which conversion can be done. Conversion fundamentally involves interference of some kind with the owner’s ability to use the property. It is possible to interfere without actually taking the property from the lawful owner. Phrased another way, theft would be a kind of conversion, but there are other types of conversion besides theft. Anyway, definitions and theft aside, the question I was trying...
by Andy Chen | Jun 2, 2021 | California, Statutes... and stuff, Torts
For a change of pace, I’m going to do a short post. (I can hear all of you now collectively going “Finally!”) The topic of today’s post is the statute of limitations for a negligence action in California. As a reminder, a statute of limitations is the time period within which a plaintiff has to file their civil suit seeking redress from the defendant. As a general rule of thumb, this proverbial clock starts to run when the last criteria that needs to be met in order to prove the lawsuit occurs. Phrased another way, if you need to prove 5 criteria in order to win your lawsuit, your statute of limitations clock doesn’t start to run until the 5th and final criteria occurs. In California, the negligence statute of limitations is 2 years under Section 335.1 of California’s Code of Civil Procedure. Section 335.1 states “Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.” An example where this might apply would be a car accident where the plaintiff suffered injuries of some kind to their body. There are many exceptions to this two-year rule, however. For example, if your case involves asbestos exposure of some kind, the statute of limitations could be as short as one year under Section 340.2 of California’s Code of Civil Procedure. If you have a situation involving negligence in California, the best way to know what statute of limitations applies to you is to find a lawyer with whom you can discuss the details of...
by Andy Chen | Aug 29, 2020 | New York, Torts
In this post, I’m going to continue my series of exploring various statutes of limitation for torts under New York law. Previously, I went over statutes of limitation for torts like fraud and wrongful death. In this post, I’m going to talk about one of the lesser known torts, the tort of conversion. The tort of conversion is about interference and specifically interference with plaintiff’s ability to possess an item they have the legal right to possess. In New York, the criteria for conversion are (1) the existence of plaintiff’s possessory right or interest in the item, and (2) defendant’s dominion over that item or interference with it in derogation of plaintiff’s rights. In my admittedly limited research, the New York authority I found for that is a New York Court of Appeals case called Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc (2006) 8 N.Y.3d 43, 49. As my first aside, I’ll point out that California also provides for the tort of conversion so it is not specific to New York. In California, the elements for conversion are (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrong act or disposition of plaintiff’s property rights; and (3) damages suffered by plaintiff. The California authority for that — because I care and know that you’re interested — is a California Supreme Court case called Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240. A reminder as well that the California Supreme Court and New York Court of Appeals are both the highest state courts in their respective states and, as a result,...
by Andy Chen | Aug 11, 2020 | New York, Torts
In this post, I’m going to go over the tort of Abuse of Process under New York law. I went over Abuse of Process under California law in a prior post. As a refresher, a tort is something a person who has been wronged can file a civil lawsuit over. The plaintiff in such a suit most often requests some amount of money from the defendant, although other types of relief (e.g. declaratory, injunctive, etc) are possible also. As it is in California, many torts in New York are element-based. In other words, there are a set number of criteria for that tort. The plaintiff establishes the defendant’s liability for the tort by proving that each of those elements are met. In New York, the criteria for Abuse of Process are: regularly issued legal process, civil or criminal, compelling performance or forbearance of some act, and the person activating the process was moved by an ulterior purpose to do harm, without economic or social excuse or justification, and the person activating the process south some collateral advantage or corresponding detriment to the plaintiff that is outside the legitimate ends of the process, and plaintiff suffers actual or special damage. Based on my cursory research, there seem to be quite a few cases in New York that lay out these criteria. I could be wrong, but it looks like all of those cases stem from a 1975 Court of Appeals of New York case called Board of Education of Farmingdale Union Free School District v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Association, Inc Local 1889 AFT AFL-CIO (38 NY2d 397). The case is...
by Andy Chen | Apr 6, 2020 | California, Torts
Nowadays, it is quite common for individuals to take photographs and/or videos of a sexual nature and share them with their current relationship partner. Unfortunately, sometimes the relationship ends in an acrimonious way and the recipient of said photographs and/or videos decides — who might feel wronged or slighted — decides to share them with others as a way of getting even. The term “Revenge Porn” is often used to describe this situation. In California, perpetrators of Revenge Porn (i.e. those who share sexual photos and videos of others) can be punished in a variety of ways. For example, there’s criminal prosecution under California Penal Code section 647(j)(4), which I will cover in a later post. One key thing I’ll point out now, though, is that if the victim in a Revenge Porn case is a minor (e.g. 16 or 17 years old), additional charges related to, for instance, child pornography may be on the table also. Many criminal sentences (e.g. jail time) are also increased for Revenge Porn cases involving a victim who is a minor. In this post, I’ll briefly go over the civil suit liability under California Civil Code section 1708.85(a), which provides: “A private cause of action lies against a person who intentionally distributes by any means a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or any other reproduction of another, without the other’s consent, if (1) the person knew that the other person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private, (2) the distributed material exposes an intimate body part of the other person, or shows the other person engaging in an act of intercourse,...
