Winding Creek v. McGlashan
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, Acting P. J.
The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer of various attorney defendants on statute of limitations grounds. Following plaintiffs’ appeal, we hold that the third amended complaint relates back to an earlier pleading filed before the statute of limitations had run and, accordingly, is not time barred. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we further conclude the third amended complaint adequately alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation against the attorney defendants. The judgment is reversed…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Cross v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
- Pierce v. LymanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Palestini v. General Dynamics Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 2000
- Thorburn v. Department of CorrectionsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Kuchta v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba AmtrakDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
- Osuna v. Paragon Systems CA2/8California Court of Appeal · 2020
- The Estate of Carlos Escobar Mejia v. ArchambeaultDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.