Borrayo v. Avery CA1/1
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the written opinion filed on July 20, 2022 is modified as follows: On page 13, after the first sentence of the last full paragraph ending with “and we concur,” add as footnote 5 the following footnote, which will require the renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:
5 At oral argument and in a subsequent petition for rehearing in this matter, counsel for appellant suggested that there were at least ten months in the second period of impracticability (while she sought out a new expert) during which the statute of limitations should be tolled. We reject the notion that these events tolled the statute of limitations. Borrayo cannot avail herself of the protections afforded by section 583.340, subdivision (c) because she was not reasonably diligent in bringing her case to trial. (See Bruns, supra, 51 Cal.4th 717, 731 [to permit tolling under section 583.340, subdivision (c), the trial court “must determine whether plaintiff has shown a circumstance of
Comments on Borrayo v. Avery CA1/1