California statutes of limitations — every deadline that matters.

Why California statutes of limitations matter — and where they sit in litigation#

A statute of limitations is the maximum amount of time a plaintiff has to file a claim after the cause of action accrues. Once the deadline passes, the claim is time-barred regardless of merits — the defendant pleads the statute as an affirmative defense, and the court dismisses the case. California courts apply statutes of limitations strictly. There's no general 'good cause' exception, no inherent court discretion to extend, and only narrowly defined tolling doctrines that pause the running of the clock.

Statutes of limitations operate by claim type, not by overall dispute. A single set of underlying facts can produce multiple causes of action — breach of contract, fraud, tort, statutory — each with its own SOL. The plaintiff has to file every claim within its own deadline. Missing one SOL doesn't necessarily kill the entire case, but it does kill the specific claim and often the strongest theory. A breach-of-contract claim that's time-barred but a fraud claim that's still timely produces a meaningfully weaker case than the same facts with both claims live.

The deadline analysis runs in two layers: (1) what statute applies to the claim, and (2) when did the claim accrue. Most SOL disputes turn on the accrual question rather than the statute question — California's SOLs are mostly clear-cut by claim type, but accrual under the discovery rule, the continuing-violation doctrine, and various tolling provisions can shift the deadline by months or years.

Contract claims#

Written contracts — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §337#

Four years from breach. Applies to claims founded on instruments in writing, including written contracts, written guarantees, written promises to pay, and certain account stated claims. The four-year deadline is one of California's most commonly relied-on SOLs in business litigation.

Oral contracts — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §339#

Two years from breach. Applies to oral contracts and to claims founded on implied or quasi-contract theories not based on written instruments. The shorter deadline reflects the evidentiary difficulties with oral agreements over time.

Negotiable instruments and commercial code claims#

California's Uniform Commercial Code provisions (Cal Com. Code §§3118, 4111, 5115, etc.) include specific SOLs for negotiable instruments, bank-customer claims, and letter-of-credit disputes. Most run on three- or four-year clocks measured from different accrual events depending on instrument type.

Tort claims#

Personal injury — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §335.1#

Two years from injury. Personal-injury claims based on negligence, intentional tort, or strict liability run on a two-year clock. The accrual question can be complex when injuries develop gradually or aren't immediately apparent.

Fraud and intentional misrepresentation — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §338(d)#

Three years, with discovery-rule application. Fraud and mistake claims accrue when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the fraudulent conduct, not when the conduct occurred. The discovery rule on fraud claims is the most-litigated accrual question in California business litigation. Defense argues the plaintiff knew or should have known earlier; plaintiff argues the deception continued or the warning signs weren't sufficient.

Conversion and property damage — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §338(c)#

Three years. Conversion of personal property, trespass to chattels, and damage to personal property run on three-year clocks. Property-damage SOLs interact with conversion-tort doctrine in ways that matter when the underlying property is intangible (trade secrets, software, business records).

Defamation — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §340(c)#

One year. Slander, libel, false-light, and related reputational torts run on a one-year clock from the date of publication. The single-publication rule under Cal Civ Code §3425.3 treats online and broadcast publications as occurring on the date of first publication, regardless of continued availability. Republication can restart the clock — a different analysis from a refresh of the same statement.

Real property claims#

Recovery of real property — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §318#

Five years from accrual. Adverse possession, quiet title, and other claims to recover or establish title to real property run on a five-year clock. Real-property SOLs are often paired with title-related accrual analysis (when did the wrongful possession begin? when did the cloud on title arise?).

Trespass to real property — Cal Code Civ. Proc. §338(b)#

Three years. Continuing trespass doctrine can extend the deadline when the trespass is ongoing rather than complete.

Construction defects#

Latent defects: ten years from substantial completion under §337.15. Patent defects: four years from substantial completion under §337.1. The right-to-repair statute (Cal Civ Code §895 et seq., the 'SB 800' framework) provides additional procedural prerequisites for residential construction defect claims that interact with the SOLs.

Statutory claims — employment, consumer, and regulatory#

FEHA discrimination and harassment#

Cal Gov. Code §12960 requires filing a complaint with the Civil Rights Department (CRD, formerly DFEH) within three years of the alleged conduct — extended from one year by AB 9 (effective January 2020). The plaintiff must then receive a right-to-sue letter and file in court within one year of issuance. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies within three years kills the claim even when the underlying conduct was clearly unlawful.

Labor Code wage and hour#

Cal Labor Code §218: three years for most wage-and-hour claims (unpaid wages, overtime, meal/rest premiums). Cal Civ Code §1146/§338(a): three or four years for waiting-time penalty claims depending on theory. Cal Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 unfair-competition claims based on Labor Code violations: four years. The four-year UCL deadline routinely captures wage-and-hour claims that would be time-barred under the three-year Labor Code SOL

Consumer protection and UCL#

Cal Bus. & Prof. Code §17208: four years for Unfair Competition Law claims under §17200. Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal Civ Code §1750 et seq.): three years. The longer UCL SOL combined with the discovery rule makes UCL claims a common companion to time-barred contract or tort claims.

Securities and corporate#

Cal Corp. Code §25506: two years from discovery / five years from violation for state securities-fraud claims, whichever is earlier. Cal Corp. Code §17707.03 (LLC judicial dissolution): no fixed SOL — equitable considerations control. Cal Corp. Code §1605 (corporate dissolution): similarly equitable rather than fixed.

Tolling doctrines — when the clock pauses or restarts#

Discovery rule#

When the plaintiff couldn't reasonably have discovered the facts giving rise to the claim, the SOL clock doesn't start until discovery (or reasonable discoverability). The doctrine applies categorically to fraud claims under §338(d) and applies discretionarily to other claims when the underlying facts were hidden, inaccessible, or otherwise reasonably unknowable. Discovery-rule arguments are fact-intensive. Plaintiff argues the deception continued, the records were withheld, the wrongdoer concealed; defendant argues the warning signs were present, the records were available, the diligent plaintiff would have discovered.

Continuing violation#

When a violation is ongoing rather than a single completed act, the SOL runs from the last act in the series rather than the first. Commonly invoked in trespass (continuing entry), employment discrimination (ongoing hostile work environment), and unfair-competition (continuing business practice). The continuing-violation doctrine narrows after key California cases that require the continuing conduct to be more than just continuing effects of a single completed violation.

Equitable tolling#

Cal Code Civ. Proc. §351 (defendant's absence from state), §352 (minority or disability of plaintiff), §352.1 (incarceration), and judicial tolling doctrines in narrow circumstances. Equitable tolling is harder to invoke than discovery-rule extension; California courts apply it strictly.

Statutory tolling on specific claims#

Some California statutes include their own tolling provisions. Government Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code §911.2): government-claim filing tolls underlying SOLs. Cal Civ. Code §1714.10 (claims against lawyers for civil conspiracy): tolled while underlying matter pending. Various agency-filing requirements (FEHA, EEOC, DLSE) toll while administrative proceedings continue.

The discovery rule in practice — fraud and concealment#

Most California SOL disputes in business litigation turn on discovery-rule analysis. The two-element framework: (1) when did the plaintiff actually know facts giving rise to the claim, and (2) when should a reasonable plaintiff have known. Both elements have to be analyzed; either supports defense or plaintiff theory depending on facts.

Actual knowledge. What did the plaintiff actually know, and when? Evidence: emails, financial statements reviewed, audits performed, complaints raised internally. Defense argues plaintiff had specific knowledge earlier than claimed; plaintiff argues knowledge was incomplete or inconclusive.

Reasonable discoverability. Even if the plaintiff didn't actually know, would a reasonable plaintiff in the same circumstances have known? Evidence: industry practices, audit standards, available public information, reasonable diligence in the plaintiff's role. Defense argues warning signs were obvious; plaintiff argues no reasonable investigation would have surfaced the issue.

The discovery-rule analysis matters at the pleading stage (motion to dismiss / demurrer based on facial untimeliness), at summary judgment (where discovery has developed the factual record), and at trial. Each stage has different evidentiary standards and different burdens, but the framework remains the same.

Calculating the deadline — and what plaintiffs actually do wrong#

Once the accrual date is established and the applicable SOL is identified, calculating the actual deadline should be mechanical. Most missed deadlines aren't calculation errors — they're either accrual-analysis errors (the plaintiff thought the clock started later than it actually did) or filing errors (the plaintiff filed in the wrong court, naming the wrong defendant, or with procedural defects that the SOL ran during).

Filing fundamentals. A claim is 'filed' when the complaint is delivered to the court clerk for filing — not when the complaint is drafted, signed, or mailed. Electronic filing through California's e-filing systems is filed when the system accepts the submission. Filing in the wrong venue doesn't necessarily toll; the SOL continues to run while the case is pending in the wrong court if the filing was substantively defective.

Naming the right defendant. A claim against the wrong defendant doesn't toll the SOL against the correct defendant unless the relation-back doctrine (Cal Code Civ. Proc. §474, Doe-defendant practice) applies. Doe-defendant practice requires good-faith ignorance of the true defendant's identity at filing; an amended complaint adding a known but unnamed defendant after the SOL runs is typically time-barred.

California's tolling and accrual doctrines combine to produce some surprising outcomes. A defendant who concealed their identity can extend the SOL substantially through equitable estoppel. A plaintiff who delays in identifying defendants can lose claims that would otherwise be timely. The combined effect: SOL analysis is rarely as simple as 'four years from breach' once the surrounding facts are developed.

Why same-firm representation matters here#

SOL analysis runs through every major decision in early-stage litigation: which claims to plead, which defendants to name, what venue to choose, how to frame the underlying conduct, what tolling theories to preserve. The analysis is harder to do well after the SOL is in dispute than before — by then, the plaintiff is committed to facts that may not have been optimally framed for SOL purposes.

Same firm advises before filing. Same firm litigates the SOL defenses that arise after filing. That continuity matters because SOL strategy is part of the case strategy from intake forward. A firm that has handled both the transactional context (when the underlying conduct occurred) and the litigation framing knows what evidence the plaintiff actually has, when the plaintiff likely discovered the relevant facts, and how to plead around the SOL issues that will inevitably arise. A firm meeting the plaintiff for the first time at the SOL motion has less ability to shape the narrative than one that knew the matter before the complaint was filed.