California Supreme Court Watch

#24-19 Escamilla v. Vannucci, S282866. (A166176; 97 Cal.App.5th 175; Alameda County Superior Court; RG21111193.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: What statute of limitations applies to a malicious prosecution action brought against an attorney when the claim does not arise from an attorney-client relationship?

Petition for review granted: 1/31/2024

Case fully briefed: 4/17/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 1/07/2025

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 3/20/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Escamilla v. Vannucci (2025) 17 Cal.5th 571.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 sets out a two-year statute of limitations for a variety of tort suits, including malicious prosecution. However, section 340.6 provides a one-year limitations period for certain suits brought against attorneys. Here, we decide which is the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action against an attorney. Based on the statutory text, purpose, and legislative history, we hold that section 340.6 does not apply to claims against attorneys brought by parties who were never their clients or the intended beneficiaries of their clients. Because the malicious prosecution claims here are brought by formerly adverse parties and not by an attorney’s own clients, they are not subject to the one-year limitations period in section 340.6….

The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal for it to return the case to the trial court with directions to consider any unaddressed arguments in the anti-SLAPP motion. The contrary holdings in Garcia v. Rosenberg, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th 1050, Connelly v. Bornstein, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th 783, Yee v. Cheung, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th 184, and Vafi v. McCloskey, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th 874 are disapproved.”  (Fn. omitted)

Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Guerrero and Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

In the news: Blazejewski, State Supreme Court clarifies statute of limitations for non-client claims against attorneys, Daily Journal (June 6, 2025).