Corporate law attorneys california

CCP § 338 imposes a three-year statute for taking of or injury to personal property, and for fraud. Deutsch v. Turner Corp. (9th Cir. Cal. Mar. 6, 2003), 324 F.3d 692, 2003 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 3942. An application for a writ of mandamus is a special proceeding of a civil nature within the rules governing the statute of limitations. Raymond v. Christian (CalifLaw Dec. 16, 1937), 24 CalifLaw 2d 92, 74 P.2d 536, 1937 CalifLawCALIFLAW 28.California corporate law attorney helps customers in business litigations.

An action in mandamus must be commenced within three years after the cause of action has accrued. Dillon v. Board of Pension Comm'rs (Cal. Aug. 18, 1941), 18 Cal. 2d 427, 116 P.2d 37, 1941 Cal. CALIFLAW 379.

The three-year statute of limitations applicable to a liability created by statute under CCP § 338(1), is applicable to actions in mandamus. Pena v. City of Los Angeles (CalifLaw 2d Dist. May 28, 1970), 8 CalifLaw 3d 257, 87 Cal. Rptr. 326, 1970 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2037.

The statute of limitations on a mandamus proceeding begins to run when the petitioner’s right first accrues. Monroe v. Trustees of California State Colleges (Cal. Dec. 30, 1971), 6 Cal. 3d 399, 99 Cal. Rptr. 129, 491 P.2d 1105, 1971 Cal. CALIFLAW 228.

A petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to enforce a city’s obligation to submit its utility tax to a public vote, an obligation based on the statutory provisions created by Prop. 62, was not barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations (CCP § 338(a)), even though the utility tax was imposed in 1991 and the petition was filed in 1996. The claim did not begin to run at the time the tax ordinance was adopted by the city, but rather when a California Supreme Court decision validated the provisions of Prop. 62, which had been found unconstitutional by a lower court, and thus established the existence of a duty on the part of the city to conduct an election. Under controlling case law prior to the California Supreme Court decision, the city had no such duty and, accordingly, the plaintiff had no valid basis for seeking mandamus relief. McBrearty v. City of Brawley (CalifLaw 4th Dist. Dec. 15, 1997), 59 CalifLaw 4th 1441, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862, 1997 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1037, overruled in part, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (Cal. June 4, 2001), 25 Cal. 4th 809, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 369, 23 P.3d 601, 2001 Cal. CALIFLAW 3253.

An action by a connecting carrier against a shipper to recover unpaid freight for the shipment of goods pursuant to a bill of lading issued by the initial carrier and providing for payment of freight by the owner or consignee of the goods is based upon the bill of lading and not governed by this section. New York C. R. Co. v. Mutual Orange Distributors (9th Cir. Cal. May 6, 1918), 251 F. 230, 1918 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 1692.