Hopkins v. Kedzierski
170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hopkins injured May 9, 2008, when she fell from a balcony at Perfect Smile’s offices.
- Hopkins began receiving workers’ compensation benefits immediately after the injury.
- In April 2009 Hopkins filed a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board claim seeking additional benefits.
- Hopkins filed this civil action September 14, 2010 against Perfect Smile, Jurek Kedzierski (as trustee) and Margo Kedzierski, alleging negligence and premises liability; claimed tolling/estoppel could render the action timely.
- Hopkins dismissed her claim against Perfect Smile in November 2012; the trial court bifurcated the tolling/estoppel issues for a bench trial.
- In January 2013 the court ruled neither equitable tolling nor equitable estoppel applied, and judgment was entered for respondents; Hopkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hopkins had a right to a jury trial on tolling/estoppel | Hopkins contends she is entitled to a jury trial on tolling/estoppel. | Defendants argue equitable tolling/estoppel are equity issues for the court. | No error; no right to jury trial on these equitable issues. |
| Whether trial court’s reasons for denying equitable tolling were legally sufficient | Hopkins argues the court’s reasons were legally inadequate to deny tolling. | Defendants rely on Elkins and McDonald to deny tolling as a matter of law. | Remand required to make factual findings on the three elements of equitable tolling. |
| Whether equitable estoppel applies based on alleged settlement negotiations or misrepresentations | Hopkins asserts estoppel due to misrepresentations and settlement negotiations. | Defendants contend no misrepresentations and no reasonable reliance were proven. | Substantial evidence supports the court’s conclusion that equitable estoppel does not apply. |
| Whether the tolling analysis should consider different defendants or overlap with workers’ compensation | Hopkins argues tolling can apply even when the first action involves different defendants. | Defendants maintain lack of shared party analysis precludes tolling. | Tolling may apply where first action puts defendant on notice and facts are sufficiently similar; mere different defendants do not bar tolling. |
| Disposition and remand instruction | N/A | N/A | Remand to determine whether Hopkins demonstrated the elements of equitable tolling; then apply tolling if appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co., 23 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1978) (right to jury trial limited to historical legal actions; equity issues not juried)
- Hoopes v. Dolan, 168 Cal.App.4th 146 (Cal. App. 2008) (equitable issues may be decided by court; advisory juries possible)
- McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist., 45 Cal.4th 88 (Cal. 2008) (elements of equitable tolling; liberal application to satisfy notice and fairness)
- Elkins v. Derby, 12 Cal.3d 410 (Cal. 1974) (tolling when plaintiff pursues an alternate remedy; three elements: timely notice, lack of prejudice, good faith/ reasonable conduct)
- Myers v. County of Orange, 6 Cal.App.3d 626 (Cal. App. 1970) (early example supporting tolling when pursuing alternative remedy)
- Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange, 40 Cal.App.4th 459 (Cal. App. 1995) (notice and tolling applicability across non-identical defendants)
- Stalberg v. Western Title Ins. Co., 27 Cal.App.4th 925 (Cal. App. 1994) (tolling notice considerations across actions)
- Apple Valley Unified School Dist. v. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., 98 Cal.App.4th 934 (Cal. App. 2002) (notice and tolling considerations in multi-action contexts)
- R.D. v. P.M., 202 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. App. 2011) (equitable tolling and related standards in California)