Azpitarte v. Sauve

2 Citing cases

  1. Murphy v. Wedan

    3:21-CV-5707-DWC (W.D. Wash. Jun. 27, 2024)

    “Due diligence, with respect to the discovery rule, is a question of fact unless reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion.” Azpitarte v. Sauve, 188 Wash.App. 1016 (2015). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the necessary facts could not be discovered in time.

  2. Grozav v. City of Vancouver

    CASE NO. C15-5541 RBL (W.D. Wash. Jan. 22, 2016)

    See Bagley v. CMC Realty Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) ("[T]he appropriate statute of limitations in a § 1983 action is the three-year limitation of RCW 4.16.080(2)."); Doe v. Finch, 133 Wash.2d 96, 101 (1997) (Either a two or a three-year statute of limitations applies to outrage claims.); Azpitarte v. Sauve, 188 Wash.App. 1016, 2015 WL 3766529, at *2 (2015) (Civil conspiracy claims have a three-year statute of limitations.); Coffey v. Mugler, 68 Fed. App'x 822 (9th Cir. 2003) (Washington malicious prosecution claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.).