California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Aerojet General Corp. v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.3d 950, 223 Cal.Rptr. 249 (Cal. App. 1986):
2 Although plaintiff argues the three-year statute of limitations provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 338 for fraudulent activities should be applicable in this instance, we conclude under the facts that the one-year statute of limitations provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (3), provides the appropriate period of limitation. However, plaintiff acknowledges that unless he prevails on a tolling theory, neither statute is of any avail to him.
3 See Bradler v. Craig (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 466, 471-472, 79 Cal.Rptr. 401.
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.