{"id":192,"date":"2013-05-15T15:07:16","date_gmt":"2013-05-15T15:07:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/?p=192"},"modified":"2021-12-21T20:05:41","modified_gmt":"2021-12-21T20:05:41","slug":"california-statute-of-limitations-bars-legal-malpractice-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/california-statute-of-limitations-bars-legal-malpractice-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"California statute of limitations bars legal malpractice claim"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>by <a href=\"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/attorneys.html?Attorney=Graham\">Christopher J. Graham<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/attorneys.html?Attorney=Kelly\">Joseph P. Kelly<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=9104886739518087470&amp;hl=en&amp;lr=lang_en&amp;as_sdt=2,14&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholaralrt\">Eastwood Ranch, LP, et al v. Dyess, et al, Case No. G046526 (Cal. App. 4th Jan. 16, 2013) (unpublished)<\/a><\/p>\n<p>California\u2019s one-year statute of limitations barred plaintiffs\u2019 legal malpractice claim. Plaintiffs discovered in 2007 that defendants didn\u2019t include a significant provision in purchase option documents, but didn\u2019t file suit until 2010. Court stated under California law (\u00a7 340.6) \u201cthe limitations period is one year from actual or imputed discovery, or four years (whichever is sooner), unless tolling applies\u201d and that the trigger for the one year limit is the client\u2019s \u201cdiscovery of \u2018the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission,\u2019 not by his discovery that such facts constitute professional negligence\u2026\u201d Plaintiffs discovered the facts constituting purported negligence in 2007 \u2013 three years before filing suit.<\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Christopher J. Graham and Joseph P. Kelly Eastwood Ranch, LP, et al v. Dyess, et al, Case No. G046526 (Cal. App. 4th Jan. 16, 2013) (unpublished) California\u2019s one-year statute of limitations barred plaintiffs\u2019 legal malpractice claim. Plaintiffs discovered in 2007 that defendants didn\u2019t include a significant provision in purchase option documents, but didn\u2019t file [&hellip;]<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":193,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192\/revisions\/193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joneslemongraham.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}