Shalabi v. City of Fontana, 489 P.3d 714

On May 14, 2011 plaintiff (Luis Alexandro Shalabi) was a minor when his father was killed; plaintiff was born December 3, 1993 and turned 18 on December 3, 2011.
Plaintiff filed a § 1983 wrongful-death action on December 3, 2013; the applicable California statute of limitations for wrongful death is two years and is tolled during minority (§ 352, subd. (a)).
The parties stipulated to birthdate, date plaintiff reached majority, and date of filing; the sole issue at trial was whether the claim was time-barred.
The trial court ruled the claim was one day late because it included plaintiff’s 18th birthday when computing the post-tolling limitations period and dismissed the claim.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Code of Civil Procedure § 12 (exclude first day, include last) applies so the 18th birthday is excluded and the complaint was timely; the Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal: § 12 governs computation after age-based tolling, the day a minor turns 18 is excluded, and Ganahl I (an earlier contrary unreported opinion) was vacated and is not precedential.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the day a minor turns 18 is included when computing a limitations period that was tolled during minority	Exclude the 18th birthday under § 12’s ordinary rule (first day excluded)	Include the 18th birthday because the plaintiff has the whole day to sue and the law does not recognize fractions of a day	Exclude the 18th birthday; apply § 12 (first day excluded, last day included)
Whether section 12’s general rule applies to time computed after age-based tolling	§ 12 governs; no clear legislative exception exists	An exception should apply when the triggering day is a whole day	§ 12 applies; no clear statutory intent to create an exception for age-based tolling
Whether the prior Ganahl I decision controls computation after minority	Ganahl I is not binding here; § 12 controls	Ganahl I supports including the birthday and should be followed	Ganahl I was vacated by a grant of rehearing and superseded by Ganahl II, so it has no precedential effect
Whether excluding the birthday conflicts with other temporal statutes or unfairly extends limitations	Exclusion promotes uniformity and protects minors as § 352 intends	Exclusion can produce an extra calendar day/year or conflict with statutory definitions of a year	No conflict identified; courts routinely handle holiday/weekend adjustments and exclusion protects minors without statutory conflict

Ley v. Dominguez, 212 Cal. 587 (Cal. 1931) (articulates and enforces § 12’s ordinary rule excluding the first day and requiring clear expression for any exception)
Ganahl v. Soher, 68 Cal. 95 (Cal. 1885) (the Court’s later, superseding opinion in the Ganahl matter; prior department opinion was vacated)
In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813 (Cal. 1993) (discusses computation of minority and confirms rules about unpublished/unreported opinions)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (federal law governs accrual of § 1983 claims; state law governs tolling)
Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374 (9th Cir. 1998) (applies state tolling rules to federal civil rights claims)
Nelson v. Sandkamp, 34 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. 1948) (reaches same conclusion that ordinary rule excluding first day applies after minority tolling)
Fields v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 818 P.2d 658 (Alaska 1991) (analogous holding applying ordinary computation rule after attainment of majority)