Sidney v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
198 Cal. App. 3d 710, 244 Cal. Rptr. 31 (1988)
Facts
On November 7, 1985, a vehicle driven by Pauline Kinoshita (plaintiff) collided with a car driven by Erik Sidney (defendant). On February 4, 1986, Kinoshita filed a complaint for personal injury and property damages against Sidney. On April 17, 1986, Sidney filed a cross-complaint for property damages against Al Munari Produce, the alleged owner of the vehicle that Kinoshita was driving. A year and 10 days later, on April 27, 1987, Sidney filed a motion for leave to amend his cross-complaint to add a claim for personal injuries against Kinoshita. The trial court denied Sidney’s motion because it concluded that his personal-injury claim was time-barred under the applicable one-year limitations period and that the relation-back doctrine did not apply when the original complaint related to a property-damage claim. Sidney, who alleged that the limitations period was tolled when Kinoshita filed her claim for personal injuries that she sustained in the same accident, sought mandamus relief in the court of appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
