This change took effect beginning on January 1, 2020. Streets v. Space Sys./Loral, LLC, No. 20-cv-07901-EJD, 2021 WL 4146962, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021).
Here, the Court applies the one-year statute of limitations because Plaintiff's claim had already lapsed under the prior version of section 12960 when the three-year statute of limitations became effective. See Streets v. Space Systems/Loral, LLC, No. 20-CV-07901-EJD, 2021 WL 4146962 at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 31, 2021) (applying the three-year statute of limitations because the plaintiff's claim had not yet lapsed under the prior, one-year version); see also Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc., 11 Cal.5th 918, 931 (2021) (applying the one-year statute of limitations because the alleged misconduct occurred in 2017). the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted . . . within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.
See Jordan v. Herrera, 2003 WL 22668840, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2003) (“A claim is barred, or ‘stale,' if the applicable statute of limitations period expires prior to the enactment of the statutory enlargement.”); see also Streets v. Space Sys./Loral, LLC, 2021 WL 4146962, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (finding claim timely where section 12960(e) “became effective” before claim lapsed under old rule). Such an application is not considered retroactive.
See Lambert, 308 F.2d at 571. Given that fact, the one-year limitation on Plaintiffs' § 1986 claim ran on September 6, 2019-several months before Emergency Rule 9 took effect on April 6, 2020, see Simon Streets v. Space Systems/Loral, LLC, 2021 WL 4146962, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (“California's ER 9 ... does not revive lapsed claims.”), and the Court agrees with Defendants that the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs' § 1983 and § 1985 claims expired no later than March 1, 2020, even with the 178-day extension under Emergency Rule 9. Plaintiffs' arguments with respect to the last overt act doctrine and Emergency Rule 9 are, therefore, unavailing.
at 931 (“The current statute uses virtually identical language but allows for a period of three years.”); Streets v. Space Sys./Loral, LLC, No. 20-cv-07901-EJD, 2021 WL 4146962, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (“As of January 1, 2020, the time to file a charge with the [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] for an alleged [Fair Employment and Housing Act] violation was extended to three years.”).
With the exception of Tapia, where the limitations period expired just days before the ER 9 tolling start date, federal courts are not permitting ER 9 to revive state law claims that lapsed before April 6, 2020. See Simon Streets v. Space Systems/Loral, LLC, No. 20-CV-07901-EJD, 2021 WL 4146962, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (“California's ER 9 . . . does not revive lapsed claims.”); Redick, v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, No. 1:21-CV-0979-SAB, 2021 WL 3207250, at *4 n.3 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2021) (noting that Emergency Rule 9 did not save plaintiff's claims because limitations period had already run as of April 6, 2020).