Employment attorney riverside California
The statute does not run against one who acts promptly as soon as he has discovered the fraud on which the suit is based. Houston v. Rosborough (9th Cir. Cal. Feb. 4, 1924), 295 F. 137, 1924 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 3161. The employment attorney riverside is ready for litigation.
The rules relating to the computation of the period of limitations from the discovery of fraud to the commencement of the action apply also to the discovery of the mistake. Davis Welding & Mfg. Co. v. Advance Auto Body Works, Inc. (CalifLaw Apr. 2, 1940), 38 CalifLaw 2d 270, 100 P.2d 1067, 1940 CalifLawCALIFLAW 639.
The statute runs from the time of the discovery of the fraud or from such time as it could have been discovered had the injured party exercised reasonable diligence. Rubinstein v. Minchin (CalifLaw July 17, 1941), 46 CalifLaw 2d 115, 115 P.2d 537, 1941 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1368; Twining v. Thompson (CalifLaw Feb. 19, 1945), 68 CalifLaw 2d 104, 156 P.2d 29, 1945 CalifLawCALIFLAW 741.
CCP § 338(4) commences running only after the party has discovered the fraud or has knowledge of the facts sufficient to make a reasonably prudent person suspicious of fraud, thus putting him on inquiry. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co. (Cal. May 29, 1945), 26 Cal. 2d 412, 159 P.2d 958, 1945 Cal. CALIFLAW 167; Johnston v. Johnson (CalifLaw Sept. 20, 1954), 127 CalifLaw 2d 464, 274 P.2d 1, 1954 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1363.
CCP § 338(4) determines the time for commencement of an action, irrespective of its form, the gist of which is a fraud, and in which relief on such ground is sought. Turner v. Milstein (CalifLaw Apr. 20, 1951), 103 CalifLaw 2d 651, 230 P.2d 25, 1951 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1214.
Statute of limitations does not commence to run in cases involving fraudulent concealment until the plaintiff discovers his injury, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered it. Stafford v. Shultz (Cal. May 11, 1954), 42 Cal. 2d 767, 270 P.2d 1, 1954 Cal. CALIFLAW 208.
A three-year statute of limitations of subd 4 makes no distinction between actual fraud, constructive fraud, and mistake insofar as tolling statutes are concerned; it commences to run on discovery in all three cases. County of Santa Cruz v. McLeod (CalifLaw 1st Dist. Feb. 20, 1961), 189 CalifLaw 2d 222, 11 Cal. Rptr. 249, 1961 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2166.