Does section 360.5 of the California Statute of limitations bar a plaintiff from bringing a claim against the statute of limitations?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Don Johnson Prods., Inc. v. Rysher Entm't, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 590, 209 Cal.App.4th 919 (Cal. App. 2012):
It is true that the "statute of limitations should not be characterized by courts as either favored or disfavored. The two public policies ... the one for repose and the other for disposition on the meritsare equally strong, the one being no less important or substantial than the other." (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 396, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 981 P.2d 79.) But section 360.5 evinces a public policy of precluding agreed-upon, indefinite periods of limitations.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment by holding that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
