 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McMahon v. El Camino Community College District1/31/2002
)
Relying in part on Barton, the court in Acuna v. Regents of University of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 639, applied the one-year statute of limitations to a state constitutional claim for violation of speech rights. The court in Acuna stated: "Assuming that the university wrongfully fired a tenured professor because it disapproved of his or her political views, an action for wrongful termination would be subject to a one-year statute of limitations. [Citations.] The same statute of limitations should apply to job applicants who allege wrongful denial of public employment because of their political views. [ ] . . . [ ] We reject the argument that the two-year statute of limitations [in section 339, subdivision 1] applies. Appellant had no property right to a tenured teaching position." (56 Cal.App.4th at p. 646.)
Based on the foregoing authorities, we conclude that the trial court properly applied the one-year statute of limitations to this action. Appellant's reliance on a federal case analyzing the statute of limitations for a similar claim under federal law is misplaced; he cites no applicable authority to support his argument that the three-year statute of limitations for a qui tam action under the California False Claims Act is applicable to this action.
We need not address the issue of whether the statute of limitation began to run when the decision to terminate McMahon was made in November 1996, or when he was actually terminated in January 1998. Under either scenario, this action filed in September 1999, is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Because the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the ground of the statute of limitation, we need not address the other grounds for demurrer.
In connection with a motion for over $50,000 in sanctions for bringing a frivolous appeal, respondents request that we take judicial notice of a motion and a judgment in other actions brought by McMahon. Although we take judicial notice of the judgment in the other case, we nevertheless conclude that under the standards set out in In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650, and its progeny, we decline to award sanctions.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
JOHNSON, J.
WOODS, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|