Legal Opinion · Dissent

Don Johnson Productions, Inc. v. Rysher Entertainment

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 1, 2012No. B227304Published

1Dissent

MOSK, J., Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

A. Tolling Agreement

Defendant asserts that the Code of Civil Procedure section 360.51 renewal requirement applies to the “tolling agreement” between the parties, and therefore plaintiff’s claim is untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. (§ 337.) The apparent purpose of section 360.5 was to prevent creditors from extracting perpetual waivers of the statute of limitations and thereby emasculating the defense of the statute of limitations. (See California First Bank v. Braden (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 672, 677 [264 Cal.Rptr. 820].) Moreover,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Addison v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API