Prop 65 Statute of Limitations

Two April 2003 decisions were the first published appellate cases to provide guidance on the statute of limitations in Proposition 65 litigation.

In Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co., no. B157698 (2nd Appellate District, Division 2, Filed April 10, 2003), the plaintiff alleged that the defendants' contamination of the property (which had ended in 1991) violated Prop 65's discharge prohibition, and sought civil penalties and injunctive relief (in addition to damages under nuisance and other theories). The court held that the civil penalty aspect of the case was governed by the one-year limitations period of § 340(1) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and not the three-year period of § 338 (whic governs injury or trespass to land). Significant to the court was the fact that Prop 65 "provides a recovery in addition to the damages a plaintiff might otherwise recover, and it is therefore penal. Because the civil penalty is mandatory and penal, and the Act does not specify a different limitation on actions, prior case law supports our application of section 340, subdivision (a)." The plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief under Prop 65, and the court did not address the applicability of the statute of limitations for such relief. Download the opinion [Word/pdf]

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court, no. E031381 (Fourth Appellate District, Division Two), involved claims by numerous plaintiffs of both personal injury and violation of Proposition 65's discharge prohibition due to groundwater contamination. The court held that widespread publicity regarding the contamination in Redlands, California, had put the plaintiffs on notice of a potential link between the contamination and their injuries, thus triggering the statute of limitations under the "discovery rule" (the accrual date of a cause of action is delayed until the plaintiff is aware of his injury and its negligent cause). With regard to the Prop 65 claim, the court found appropriate to apply the delayed discovery rule to Proposition 65 claims, "because discharge of toxic chemicals will often not be immediately detectable." The court did "seriously question whether Lockheed is liable under Proposition 65," because it had ceased operations long before the statute was passed by the voters, but did not make a formal decision because "this issue is not before us." Download the opinion [Word/pdf].

This page last updated 5/25/03