Class action lawyers California

 

Where state board revoked the credential of the teacher, advised him that it lacked jurisdiction or authority to restore his credential and that no school district could legally employ him, and where advice largely induced the teacher’s inaction to have his credential restored, the state board was estopped from later relying on the statute of limitations. Lerner v. Los Angeles City Board of Education (Cal. Apr. 4, 1963), 59 Cal. 2d 382, 29 Cal. Rptr. 657, 380 P.2d 97, 1963 Cal. CALIFLAW 167, limited, Pasquinelli v. State (CalifLaw 3d Dist. Feb. 20, 1975), 45 CalifLaw 3d 457, 119 Cal. Rptr. 438, 1975 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1700.The best class action lawyers California are waiting for you at the Nakase law office.

 

Where teacher was dismissed by the city board on the revocation of his credential by the state board, estoppel of the state board to assert and its waiver of the statute of limitations binds not only the state board but also the city board, which was in privity with the state board, being an agent of the state board. Lerner v. Los Angeles City Board of Education (Cal. Apr. 4, 1963), 59 Cal. 2d 382, 29 Cal. Rptr. 657, 380 P.2d 97, 1963 Cal. CALIFLAW 167, limited, Pasquinelli v. State (CalifLaw 3d Dist. Feb. 20, 1975), 45 CalifLaw 3d 457, 119 Cal. Rptr. 438, 1975 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1700.

 

On appeal from a judgment denying declaratory relief to policemen for a city’s alleged failure to appoint them when they were first certified from eligible lists, it was not shown that defendants were estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense, where plaintiffs failed to point out any credible evidence in the record to overcome the trial court’s finding to the contrary. Where plaintiffs made a bald assertion that an estoppel existed; that they were advised by the personnel division and relied on it to their detriment, where it was not known what advice plaintiffs received or where there was evidence of it in the record, where plaintiffs’ references to the record revealed no testimony by any person authorized to represent defendants to support plaintiffs’ claim that they were advised to wait until they had served 20 years before they had a cause of action, where any such advice, if given, came from an attorney retained by the Employee League, and where all conversations relied upon took place more than three years after plaintiffs’ alleged causes of action accrued. Pena v. City of Los Angeles (CalifLaw 2d Dist. May 28, 1970), 8 CalifLaw 3d 257, 87 Cal. Rptr. 326, 1970 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2037.

 Public Pension and Retirement Rights

An erroneous statement of city pension commissioners to disabled firemen furnished a basis for estopped from interposing the statute of limitations as a bar to a proceeding to compel the granting of a pension. Tyra v. Board of Police & Fire Pension Comm'rs (Cal. Sept. 29, 1948), 32 Cal. 2d 666, 197 P.2d 710, 1948 Cal. CALIFLAW 257.

Running of the statute of limitations against action to compel the board of pension commissioners to pay the plaintiff for services rendered as a policeman is tolled during board’s deliberations, that is, from time pension application is filed until board’s decision is rendered. Skaggs v. Los Angeles (Cal. Oct. 22, 1954), 43 Cal. 2d 497, 275 P.2d 9, 1954 Cal. CALIFLAW 268.