Minor point first.
The opening paragraph of this opinion reads: "Defendant Forty Niners Football Company, LLC
demurred on statute of limitations grounds, and the trial court sustained Long’s demurrer
without leave to amend."
I think that Justice Brown means that the trial court sustained the Forty Niners' demurrer, not Long's.
Substantive point next.
The final couple of paragraphs holds that the statute of limitations isn't tolled during the period a plaintiff files a diversity case in federal court, even though there's a federal statute that expressly tolls the limitations period for supplemental claims brought in federal court. The Court of Appeal does not cite any cases for that proposition, and thinks that the express language of the statute (28 U.S.C. sect. 1367(d)) makes the point clearly enough.
Perhaps. And I know that there are, in fact, some other courts that appear to have held the same way, albeit in dicta and without much analysis.
But it's a funny rule (if it indeed exists). Imagine a case where a plaintiff brings both federal and state claims and thinks that both federal question and diversity jurisdiction exists. If he's right, then (under the Court of Appeal's holding) there's no tolling, since original diversity jurisdiction stops the tolling. Yet if he's wrong -- if, for example, he was mistaken, or even brazenly lying about the residence of the parties -- then all of the sudden he gets the benefit of tolling, since the state claims are now based on supplemental jurisdiction.
Seems irrational Why have a longer tolling period for the wrongdoer, while potentially barring the honest guy on limitations grounds?
I'd think that even if the statute itself didn't apply, you might have some common law principle like equitable tolling to fill in the gaps. 'Cause it doesn't make much sense to me to grant a tolling period only for supplemental claims.
So I wonder if those final two paragraphs might benefit from a bit more analysis.
And maybe someone might want to eventually write a law review article about the thing.
(Not me, though.)
