PUGLIESE v. SUPERIOR COURT OF

LOSANGELESCOUNTY

Filed 1/23/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            Petition for writ of mandate.  Kevin C. Brazile, Judge.  Writ Granted.

            The Law Offices of Pease & de Petris, Cynthia A. de Petris and Edgar B. Pease III for Petitioner.

            No appearance by Respondent.

            Lapidus & Lapidus, Ryan D. Lapidus and Daniel C. Lapidus for Real Party in Interest.

* * * * * *

I.  INTRODUCTION

            Petitioner Michele Noel Pugliese (Michele) seeks a writ directing the superior court to set aside an order granting real party Dante J. Pugliese's (Dante) in limine motion to exclude all references to acts of domestic violence alleged to have occurred three years prior to the date Michele filed her domestic violence complaint.  We conclude that domestic violence litigants are entitled to seek recovery for all acts of domestic abuse occurring during the domestic relationship, so long as the litigant proves a continuing course of abusive conduct.  Accordingly, we grant the writ of mandate and direct the superior court to set aside its order granting Dante's in limine motion.

II.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            Michele and Dante were married in January 1989.  Michele filed a petition for dissolution of that marriage on April 22, 2002.[1]  On April 2, 2004, Michele sued Dante for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of civil rights.  Michele alleged Dante had engaged in a pattern of domestic abuse, both physical and mental, which began within a few months of the marriage.  Although the physical acts allegedly ceased in April 2001, Michele claims the emotional abuse continued until April 2004.  In September 2005, Dante filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of any assaults and batteries alleged to have occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the complaint, claiming that Michele could not recover damages for acts occurring prior to that time because the statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.15 barred such recovery.  The trial court granted Dante's in limine motion, and this petition followed.

III.  ISSUE

            The issue presented is whether Michele is barred, pursuant to the three-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.15, subdivision (a), from recovering damages for acts of domestic violence occurring prior to April 2001.

IV.  DISCUSSION

A.  Writ review

            Writ review is appropriate where the petition presents a significant issue of first impression.  (Marron v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1056.)

B.  Standard of review

            It is a question of law whether a case or a portion of a case is barred by the statute of limitations, and we are not bound by the trial court's determination and instead conduct a de novo review.  (Rare Coin Galleries, Inc. v. A-Mark Coin Co., Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 330, 334.)

C.  Michele's Civil Code section 1708.6 domestic violence claim was timely filed.

            Spouses are permitted to pursue appropriate civil remedies against each other, including lawsuits asserting the tort of domestic violence.  (Civ. Code, § 1708.6; see In re Marriage of McNeill (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 548, 556; Sosnick v. Sosnick (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1335, 1339-1340.)

            Civil Code section 1708.6, subdivision (a) provides:  â€