Streets v. Space Sys.

6 Citing cases

  1. Rizvanovic v. Amazon.com Servs.

    1:21-cv-01804-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    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).

  2. Lopez-Rodriguez v. Kern Med. Surgery Ctr.

    1:20-cv-01187-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  3. Moreno v. City of Porterville

    1:21-cv-00865-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  4. Magee v. Christianson

    1:21-cv-00670-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2022)

    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.

  5. Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.

    21-cv-09605-LB (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2022)

    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.”).

  6. Gianelli v. Schoenfeld

    2:21-cv-00477-JAM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    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).