Dale Susan Fischer

“ The statute of limitations for a § 17200 claim “begins to run when [a] cause of
action accrues, irrespective of whether plaintiff knew of its accrual . . . .” See Stutz
Motor Car of Am., Inc. v. Reebok Intern., Ltd., 909 F. Supp. 1353, 1363 (C.D. Cal.
1995) . Each alleged violation “create [s] a separate and distinct violation, triggering the
running of a new limitations period.” Jones v. Tracy Sch. Dist., 27 Cal. 3d 99, 105
(1980) . Headley alleges Defendants committed “a series of multiple wrongs” from 1991
to January 2005. See Stutz, 909 F. Supp. ”

“ The Court finds that California courts have not recognized such a tort and
therefore grants the motion to dismiss as to this tort claim.
Furthermore, Headley alleges that Defendants’ actions violate Article I, § 1 of the
California Constitution and California Civil Code § 52.1. Article I, § 1 of the California
Constitution states that “ [a] ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable
rights. Among them are enjoying and defending life and liberty . . . .” ”

“ Headley asserts that Defendants
failed to “pay proper wages” pursuant to federal and state labor laws during this period.
(Id. ¶¶ 19, 43.) Defendants argue that the statute of limitations bars the first and second
causes of action. Headley counters that Defendants are equitably estopped from asserting
the statute of limitations defense.
“ [A] ny business act or practice that violates the Labor Code through failure to pay
wages is, by definition (§ 17200) , an unfair business practice.” [2] Cortez v. ”

“ Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with [by another through threats,
intimidation, or coercion] , may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her
own behalf a civil action for damages . . . . ”

“ Accordingly, the limitations period on such claims have
been extended from four years to ten years and these claims are not time-barred.
Further, alleged violations of § 1589 that occurred before December 23, 2008 can
be considered. The United States Supreme Court has held that “discrete discriminatory
acts [in employment] are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts
alleged in timely filed charges.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. ”

“ Its application is wholly independent of the limitations
period itself and takes its life, not from the language of the statute, but from the equitable
principle that no man will be permitted to profit from his own wrongdoing in a court of
justice.” Battuello v. Battuello, 64 Cal. App. 4th 842, 847-48 (1998) . The complaint
must identify specific conduct that is an alleged basis for estoppel and also “plead facts
indicating that this conduct ‘actually and reasonably induced’ [the plaintiff] to forbear
filing suit within the limitations period.” Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. ”

“ RTC (collectively “Defendants”) . Headley filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)
on May 19, 2009. She was employed by Defendants from 1991 to January 2005. (SAC ¶
6.) [1] Headley claims that Defendants forced her to work for below minimum wage and
denied overtime pay. (Id. ¶ 19.) Headley alleges: (1) restitution of wages under
California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (2) unfair business practices
under § 17200; and (3) violations of California and federal prohibitions against forced
labor. ”