Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by California Code of Civil Procedure § 356. [Doc. No. 10 at 4-5.] However, this contention is inconsistent with the plain language of section 3439.09(c). “The phrase ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law’ is a ‘term of art’ that ‘expresses a legislative intent to have the specific statute control despite the existence of other law which might otherwise govern.’ ” Roach v. Lee, 369 F.Supp.2d 1194, 1199 (C.D.Cal.2005) (quoting People v. Franklin, 57 Cal.App.4th 68, 73-74, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 742 (1997)). Therefore, 3439.09(c)’s seven-year backstop “is absolute,” and “it cannot be tolled or otherwise extended.” Internet Direct Response, Inc. v. Buckley, 2011 WL 835607, at *6, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28344, at *21 (C.D.Cal. Mar. 7, 2011); see, e.g., Roach, 369 F.Supp.2d at 1199-1200 (<HOLDING>); cf Inco Development Corp. v. Sup. Ch, 131 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs civil conspiracy claim was barred by section 343909c (B) holding that the statute of repose for latent construction defects cannot be tolled by california code of civil procedure  356 (C) holding trial court erred by imposing sanctions under section 9 of civil practice and remedies code because claim for sanctions was based solely on section 10 of code and rule 13 of rules of civil procedure (D) holding that section 343909c cannot be tolled by california code of civil procedure  351 (E) recognizing distinction between findings of fact under section 6711 of the family code and findings of fact under rules of civil procedure
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs civil conspiracy claim was barred by section 343909c