California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Electronic Equipment Express, Inc. v. Donald H. Seiler & Co., 122 Cal.App.3d 834, 176 Cal.Rptr. 239 (Cal. App. 1981):
We are also persuaded that the rule we enunciate today would not undermine the aim of the statute of limitations which is to promptly apprise defendants of claims against them so that they may gather and preserve evidence. (See Addison v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d 313, 317, 146 Cal.Rptr. 224, 578 P.2d 941.) Appellants here were apprised of the claim against them within the limitations period and they in fact undertook discovery and the preservation of evidence. Accordingly, appellants suffered no prejudice of the type the statute of limitations seeks to avoid. We conclude that the filing of appellants' cross-complaint tolled the statute of limitations as to respondents' claims and upon revival of the corporation they properly proceeded with their action. 3
[122 Cal.App.3d 848]
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.