Last week, the Supreme Court granted review in a statute of limitations case, Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., no. S184929.
In Aryeh, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) examined the "continuing violation" doctrine and held, on a 2-1 vote, that it did not apply to UCL claims. Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., 185 Cal.App.4th 1159 (2010) (review granted). This blog's original post on the Court of Appeal's June 2010 opinion is here.
It looks like the Supreme Court will be resolving the split in authority on whether the delayed discovery rule applies in UCL cases, which the Court of Appeal acknowledged in Aryeh but did not address. This is the statement of issues on review from the main docket page:
(1) May the continuing violation doctrine, under which a defendant may be held liable for actions that take place outside the limitations period if those actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct within the limitations period, be asserted in an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)?
(2) May the continuous accrual doctrine, under which each violation of a periodic obligation or duty is deemed to give rise to a separate cause of action that accrues at the time of the individual wrong, be asserted in such an action?
(3) May the delayed discovery rule, under which a cause of action does not accrue until a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position has actual or constructive knowledge of facts giving rise to a claim, be asserted in such an action?