California Statutes of Limitations You Should Track Now

A California civil claim with a strong record of liability and recoverable damages is still worth nothing if it’s filed after the statute of limitations has expired. The limitations defense is rarely complicated and almost never excused by ongoing negotiation.

This article lists the California limitations periods most relevant to business disputes. It is general information; the specific limitation that applies to a specific matter requires specific analysis. The clock-starting event matters as much as the period itself.

The major periods

These are the California Code of Civil Procedure limitations periods that come up most often in business disputes:

• Written contract— 4 years (CCP § 337). The clock typically starts at breach.
• Oral contract— 2 years (CCP § 339). Same trigger.
• Account stated— 4 years (written) / 2 years (oral) under the same statutes.
• Open-book account— 4 years (CCP § 337(b)).
• Fraud— 3 years (CCP § 338(d)). The clock starts at discovery, with reasonable-diligence requirements.
• Negligent misrepresentation— generally 2 years if treated as a non-fraud tort, sometimes 3 if pleaded as fraud. Pleading affects which clock applies.
• Trespass to chattels / conversion— 3 years (CCP § 338(c)).
• Statutory liability (catch-all where the statute itself doesn’t specify)— 3 years (CCP § 338(a)).
• Personal property recovery— 3 years.
• Real property recovery— 5 years (CCP § 318).
• Judgment renewal— 10 years (CCP § 683.020), with renewal permitted before expiration.

Some specific statutes provide their own limitations periods that override the defaults. The California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, for example, has a four-year period running from the transfer (with discovery extensions) plus a seven-year outer cap for actual fraud claims (Civil Code §§ 3439.09).

Trigger events: discovery vs. accrual

The limitations period itself is half the analysis. The clock-starting event is the other half.

California recognizes several different accrual rules:

• Standard accrual— the cause of action accrues when all elements have occurred. For a contract, this is typically the breach. For a tort, this is typically the harm.
• Discovery rule— for fraud and certain other claims, the clock starts when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong. The standard of reasonable diligence matters; willful ignorance is not a defense.
• Continuing violations— some types of conduct trigger a fresh accrual on each occurrence. The doctrine is narrower than plaintiffs typically argue.
• Tolling— limitations periods can be tolled (paused) by specific circumstances: defendant absence from California, plaintiff incapacity, the parties’ written tolling agreement, and certain equitable doctrines.

The trigger analysis is where many limitations defenses succeed or fail. A claim that looks “four years old” on the calendar may have started its clock much later if a discovery rule applies.

Settlement agreements and tolling agreements

Two practical points where business owners often miss limitations issues:

Settlement agreementscan themselves create new claims with their own limitations periods. A breach of a settlement agreement is typically a breach of contract — running on the four-year (or two-year) clock from the date of the breach, not from the date of the original underlying dispute.

Tolling agreementsare written agreements between the parties to pause a limitations period during ongoing negotiation. California honors them when properly drafted. They are underused; many disputes end up filed protectively because the parties never wrote a tolling agreement they could have.

Action step

When a dispute is recognized, identify every potential cause of action and the trigger event for each. Apply the relevant limitations period plus any applicable discovery or tolling rules. The result is the calendared deadline. Diary it twice — once at six months out, once at thirty days out — so the filing decision is made deliberately, not under pressure.

Common mistakes

A few patterns recur in matters where limitations becomes an issue:

• Negotiating past the deadline.The other side’s apparent willingness to negotiate doesn’t toll the clock. Ongoing settlement discussions don’t toll the clock. Without a written tolling agreement, the clock keeps running.
• Waiting for “more facts.”Discovery-rule protection has limits. A plaintiff who could have learned the facts with reasonable diligence is treated as if they had.
• Misreading the trigger.A dispute that started five years ago doesn’t necessarily have a five-year-old claim attached to it. The trigger is the legal-claim accrual, not the start of the relationship.
• Not pleading fraud.Some claims that look like contract claims (and run on a contract limitations period) can be pleaded as fraud claims (running on the discovery-rule three-year period). Whether that’s available depends on the specific facts; whether it’s strategically wise is a separate question.

When to involve counsel

For matters where limitations is potentially close — within a year of the apparent deadline — counsel involvement before filing decisions is worth the cost. The trigger analysis is fact-specific and the consequences of getting it wrong are total.

For matters where the timeline is comfortably outside any limitations issue, the clock is one of many considerations.

Related practice pages and guides

• The California Civil Litigation Process— for how the limitations defense actually plays out
• Should You File a Lawsuit?— limitations is part of the leverage timing analysis
• Pre-Litigation Strategy— practice page

Speak with counsel

If you have a matter where limitations may be approaching,request a case evaluationorcontact our office. The evaluation is complimentary.