Does the statute of limitations apply to a breach of contract claim?

Vita contends the policy underlying "the statute of limitations would not be furthered by invoking it," because its breach of contract claim was not " 'stale.' " We are not persuaded. " 'Statute of limitations' is the 'collective term . . . commonly applied to a great number of acts,' or parts of acts, that 'prescribe the periods beyond which' a plaintiff may not bring a cause of action. [Citations.] It has as a purpose to protect defendants from the stale claims of dilatory plaintiffs. [Citations.] It has as a related purpose to stimulate plaintiffs to assert fresh claims against defendants in a diligent fashion. [Citations.] Inasmuch as it 'necessarily fix[es]' a 'definite period[] of time' . . . it operates conclusively across the board, and not flexibly on a case-by-case basis. [Citations.] That is to say, a cause of action brought by a plaintiff within the limitations period . . . is not barred, even if, in fact, the former is stale and the latter dilatory; contrariwise, a cause of action brought by a plaintiff outside such period is barred, even if, in fact, the former is fresh and the latter diligent." (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 395-396.)