California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Brodehl v. Becker, 227 Cal.App.3d 1016, 251 Cal.Rptr. 577 (Cal. App. 1988):
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in calculating the statute of limitations. Relying on Gomez v. Valley View Sanitorium (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 507, 151 Cal.Rptr. 97, plaintiff contends the interplay of sections 356 and 364 with section 340.5 operated to extend the statute of limitations 180 days after June 14, 1984, the date he served his notice of intent to sue defendants. He argues his complaint was timely even if the commencement of the statutory period is calculated from the earliest date asserted by the defendants. To understand plaintiff's argument, one must examine the language of these three statutes.
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.