California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ambito, D067341 (Cal. App. 2016):
15. In Sahadi, the court recognized that "[q]uestions concerning whether an action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations are typically questions of fact" but went on to state that "when 'the relevant facts are not in dispute, the application of the statute of limitations may be decided as a question of law. [Citation.]' " (Sahadi v. Scheaffer, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 713.) Although Sahadi does briefly mention the role the "discovery" rules have in triggering a statute of limitations (id. at p. 715), the de novo review applied in Sahadi was not de novo review of the trial court's determination of the time the plaintiff knew or should have known of the wrongdoing. Instead, Sahadi applied de novo review to the interpretation of the distinct legal question of when the plaintiff suffered "actual injury" (ibid. [noting it was the "second element of actual injurywhich is the element in controversy here"]), and ultimately concluded on de novo review that the trial court had misconstrued when the plaintiffs had suffered actual injury. (Id. at pp. 727-734.) Thus, any implication by Sahadi that de novo review is equally applicable to questions of "discovery" would be dicta.
16. The parties stipulated the criminal action was filed on February 15, 2010.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.