Kowal Law Group Logo
Hour Glass

Filing Suit Tolls Any Cross-Claims, Even Merely Permissive Cross-Claims

Tim Kowal     August 25, 2022

After being sued, you have to answer the complaint. That part is obvious. But what about a cross-complaint? If you have cross-claims against the plaintiff, and you don’t assert them right away, can they become time-barred?

Until now, this was a concern. But the recent published opinion in Paredes v. Credit Consulting Servs. (D6 Aug. 8, 2022 No. H048092) holds that the filing of a complaint tolls the statute of limitations for all cross-claims. And the rule applies regardless whether the cross-claim is compulsory or merely permissive.

A collection agency sued Paredes over some dental bills. Based on false representations in the complaint, Paredes had one year to file a claim under both the federal and state Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts.

But Paredes did not file a cross-complaint within one year. Instead, he waited one year and five months. When he filed, the collection agency filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing Paredes’s claim was not likely to prevail because of the one-year statute. But the trial court denied the motion, ruling the statute was tolled by the complaint.

Filing a complaint tolls the statute of limitations for all cross-claims, regardless of whether the cross-claims are compulsory or merely permissive.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that filing a complaint tolls the statute of limitations for all cross-claims, regardless of whether the cross-claims are compulsory or merely permissive.

The collection agency conceded that a complaint tolls the statute for purposes of cross-claims that are compulsory. Case law is already clear on that point. (E.g., Trindade v. Superior Court (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 857, 859-860 (Trindade)).

But there is apparently only one case that applied tolling or relation back to cross-claims that are permissive and noncompulsory — that is, to cross-claims against the plaintiff, but not involving the same subject matter as the complaint. The collection agency urged that that case, ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 69 (ZF Micro Devices), is an “outlier.”

Writing for the panel, Justice Danner, disagreed, and approved ZF Micro Devices. The ZF Micro Devices court acknowledged that "authors of major California treatises had expressed conflicting views on the subject" (id. at pp. 72-73) such that the "applicability of the tolling doctrine to permissive cross-complaints [wa]s not free of doubt." (Id. at p. 84.)

But as ZF Micro Devices also noted, the Supreme Court has characterized the tolling doctrine as embracing all cross-claims, “regardless of their relatedness to the claims asserted in the complaint." (ZF Micro Devices, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 91.) And "the rationale for the doctrine—that by filing the complaint 'the plaintiff has thereby waived the [statute of limitations defense] and permitted the defendant to make all proper defenses to the cause of action pleaded' [citation]—appears applicable to both compulsory and permissive cross-complaints." (Id. at p. 92.)

The Upshot:

When assessing options after being served with a complaint, if cross-claims exist, asserting them early is usually a good strategy. But if for whatever reason a cross-claim is not asserted immediately, Paredes provides some assurance that the delay may not result in that claim becoming time-barred.

Tim Kowal is an appellate specialist certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. Tim helps trial attorneys and clients win their cases and avoid error on appeal. He co-hosts the Cal. Appellate Law Podcast at CALpodcast.com, and publishes summaries of cases and appellate tips for trial attorneys. Contact Tim at [email protected] or (949) 676-9989.
Get “Not To Be Published,” a weekly digest of these articles, delivered directly to your inbox!

"It may be that the court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else."

— Hon. Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of Australia

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

— Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"God made the angels to show Him splendor, … Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind."

— Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons

"Moot points have to be settled somehow, once they get thrust upon us. If an assertion cannot be proved, then it must be settled some other way, and nearly all of these ways are unfair to somebody."

—T.H. White, The Once and Future King

"A judge is a law student who grades his own papers."

— H.L. Mencken

Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.


"Upon putting laws into writing, they became even harder to change than before, and a hundred legal fictions rose to reconcile them with reality."

— Will Durant

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

— James Madison, Federalist 62

"At common law, barratry was 'the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up suits and quarrels' (4 Blackstone, Commentaries 134) and was punished as a misdemeanor."

Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187

"So far as the beginnings of law had theories, the first theory of liability was in terms of a duty to buy off the vengeance of him to whom an injury had been done whether by oneself or by something in one's power. The idea is put strikingly in the Anglo-Saxon legal proverb, 'Buy spear from side or bear it,' that is, buy off the feud or fight it out."

— Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law

"Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading. They cannot ask that a judgment afterwards obtained be set aside merely because their equilibrium was slightly disturbed by an unexpected motion."

Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334

Copyright © 2024 Kowal Law Group
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram