Vafi v. McCloskey
193 Cal. App. 4th 874
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Vafi and Keller formed ONE SUIT, Inc. in 2002; Keller registered the ONE SUIT trademark in 2003-2004; Vafi allegedly failed to pay Keller for the trademark and inventory; Keller sued Vafi for trademark infringement in federal court in 2006; federal action dismissed in 2007; Vafi filed a malicious prosecution action on September 15, 2009 against Keller and her lawyers for the underlying trademark action; trial court struck the complaint under CCP § 340.6 as time-barred and awarded fees; court held the action was time-barred and concluded 340.6 applies to actions against attorneys for wrongful acts arising from professional services; Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs malicious prosecution against an attorney | Vafi: 335.1 applies (2-year period) | Respondents: 340.6 (1-year) governs | 340.6 governs; time-barred |
| Scope of 340.6 to include malicious prosecution actions | 340.6 should not be limited to client malpractice | 340.6 applies to wrongful acts arising from professional services | Section 340.6 applies to actions arising from professional services, not limited to malpractice |
| Tolling provisions and timing of discovery | Tolling or discovery rules should extend replacement | No tolling beyond terms; discovery rule aligns with 340.6 | Tolling provisions do not defeat 340.6’s one-year period; timing barred by filing date |
Key Cases Cited
- Stavropoulos v. Superior Court, 141 Cal.App.4th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (malicious prosecution governed by general statute; appellate analysis cited for limitations context)
- Stoll v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App.4th 1362 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (section 340.6 governs breach of fiduciary duty against attorney context)
- E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services, 153 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (specific statute of limitations overrides catchall)