What is the effect of the last element of the discovery rule on a continuing violation claim?

This last element rule is subject to a number of exceptions. The discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. [Citations.]" (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1192.) The continuing violation doctrine "aggregates a series of wrongs or injuries for purposes of the statute of limitations, treating the limitations period as accruing for all of them upon commission or sufferance of the last of them. [Citations.]" (Ibid.) Under the theory of continuous accrual, "a series of wrongs or injuries may be viewed as each triggering its own limitations period, such that a suit for relief may be partially time-barred as to older events but timely as to those within the applicable limitations period. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

The parties focus exclusively on the discovery rule. We agree with respondent that between August and October 2013,

Page 12

appellants knew or should have known that they had suffered a wrong, even though they may not have known the "'specific "facts" necessary to establish'" any particular cause of action. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397-398.) That was when they began to suspect decedent's remains had not been buried and may have been lost or neglected by the morgue. That also was when they realized that the individuals to whom decedent's daughters spoke on the phone had made misleading statements about the whereabouts of decedent's remains.

However, the discovery rule was not the basis for respondent's denial of appellants' claims. Rather, the claims were denied as untimely solely as to events that occurred over six months before the claim presentation, suggesting that respondent applied the theory of continuous accrual. Under that theory, any alleged repeated wrongdoing that occurred between February and May 2014 would still be actionable because it occurred in the six-month period preceding the presentation of the claims in August 2014. (See Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1201.) The continuing violation doctrine may justify treating the alleged continuing delay in burying decedent and the repeated misstatements that accompanied the delay "as an indivisible course of conduct actionable in its entirety, notwithstanding that the conduct occurred partially outside and partially inside the limitations period. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 1198.)

We decline to affirm the summary judgment on the ground that appellants' claims were untimely as a whole.

Page 13

On appeal, the judgment is presumed correct, "and the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority on each point made and factual analysis, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record; otherwise, the argument may be deemed forfeited. [Citations.] [] It is the appellant's responsibility to support claims of error with citation and authority; this court is not obligated to perform that function on the appellant's behalf. [Citation.]" (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655-656.) As respondent points out, appellants have failed to carry their burden to show error because their briefs fail to conform to fundamental legal principles governing appeals.