Dan Clark Family Ltd. Partnership v. Miramontes
122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dan Clark Family Limited Partnership is domiciled in Texas and purchased three commercial vehicles in California in 2001.
- Frehner allegedly arranged delivery of the Vehicles to Dan Clark in Texas, but the Vehicles were never delivered.
- Miramonteses, residents of Mexico, were alleged to have acquired the Vehicles from Frehner in an interstate transaction (Las Vegas, Nevada).
- Dan Clark filed suit in July 2007 alleging conversion and claim and delivery, asserting tolling or delayed discovery defenses.
- Trial court held the claims untimely under a three-year statute of limitations and rejected tolling under §351; court concluded tolling would violate the Commerce Clause.
- On appeal, Dan Clark challenged the tolling ruling, arguing §351 tolls the limitations period during defendants’ out-of-state absences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §351 tolling applies to nonresident defendants in this case | Dan Clark contends Miramonteses’ out-of-state absences toll the period. | Miramonteses argue tolling would be allowed only if consistent with commerce-clause limits. | No; §351 tolling violates the Commerce Clause. |
| Whether applying §351 tolling to a nonresident engaged in interstate commerce impermissibly burdens interstate commerce under Bendix | Dan Clark relies on Bendix to permit tolling for out-of-state commerce. | Miramonteses argue tolling would distort interstate commerce and impose substantial burden. | Application would place an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. |
| Whether other authorities (Abramson, Filet Menu, Heritage Marketing) support tolling in this case | Dan Clark cites these cases as authority for tolling. | Miramonteses urge these cases do not justify tolling here given nonresident/consumer context. | Not persuasive; tolling not justified under cited authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1988) (tolling of nonresidents burdens interstate commerce; cannot force choice between presence or perpetual suit)
- Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1990) (nonresident engaged in interstate commerce; tolling burdens commerce)
- Filet Menu, Inc. v. Cheng, 71 Cal.App.4th 1276 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (resident defendant; tolling not shown to burden interstate commerce; focus on resident vs nonresident)
- Heritage Marketing & Ins. Services., Inc. v. Chrustawka, 160 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (application of §351 to former CA residents now in TX; tolling burdens interstate commerce)
- Brown-Forman Distillers v. N. Y. Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1986) (context of commerce clause balancing under Pike when regulation affects interstate commerce)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1970) (establishes balancing approach for non-discriminatory statutes imposing incidental burdens on interstate commerce)
- Dew v. Appleberry, 23 Cal.3d 630 (Cal. 1979) (statewide interest in tolling to facilitate suit)