Perkin v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- After 2007 Witch/Guejito/Rice fires in San Diego County, numerous lawsuits were filed against SDG&E including purported class actions and thousands of individual claims.
- A Master Liability-Only Class Action Complaint defined a geographic area north of Interstate 8 and attached Exhibit A map showing fire perimeters and damaged properties.
- SDG&E demurred to Perkins' second amended complaint arguing the three-year statute of limitations had run; tolling depended on American Pipe and Jolly framework.
- Laurie Adoption and Frye Adoption cases involved tolling analyses based on whether the class action complaints provided sufficient notice of potential claims.
- Superior Court held tolling limited to properties within the fire boundaries shown on Exhibit A, making Perkins' (outside boundary) claims time-barred.
- On appeal, court rejected using the map to define tolling scope and ultimately held tolling did not apply to Perkins, affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether American Pipe tolling applies to Perkins' claims. | Perkins: class actions notified SDG&E of potential claims, tolling tolls. | SDG&E: tolling limited by Jolly; no adequate notice for Perkins. | No tolling for Perkins |
| Whether the Master Class Action Exhibit A map could define tolling scope. | Map boundaries should toll for all within fire area. | Map cannot be used to limit tolling beyond actual class definition. | Map not a valid tolling boundary |
| Whether the Clark Purported Class Action and Downing Purported Class Action provided notice adequate for tolling. | Original complaints put SDG&E on notice of potential claims. | Clark did not provide adequate notice for Perkins; Downing concerned different fire. | Insufficient notice; tolling not supported |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (class action tolling balanced with defendant notice; not automatic tolling)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (1988) (limits American Pipe tolling to same claims/subject matter; guard against abuse)
- Becker v. Beeco, 226 Cal.App.3d 1493 (1991) (notice in property-damage class actions may permit tolling; not broadly applicable)
- Bangert v. Narmco Materials, Inc., 163 Cal.App.3d 207 (1984) (tolling extended to certain mass actions; notice scope considered)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (context for class action and tolling considerations)