Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04098/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04098-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 On October 11, 2007, the Court granted Defendants leave to file this Motion For Reconsideration.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BURGESS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ALAMEDA

COUNTY ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C01-04098 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration Due To Court’s Failure To Rule

On Statute Of Limitations Argument Presented In Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment.

(Docket No. 235-2.)1 Defendants contend that the Court failed to rule on a dispositive legal argument

– a statute of limitations defense to Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims – in its previous order granting in part

and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. 

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Plaintiffs proffered sufficient

evidence, creating a triable issue of fact, as to the conduct of Defendants that contributed to Cathy

Burgess’ ignorance of her claim against Defendants, and as to when Cathy Burgess knew, or should

have known, that she had a claim. These disputed issues of fact, and the reasonable inferences that can

be drawn therefrom, dictate the applicability of equitable tolling in this case, and therefore preclude a

finding that the statute of limitations bars Cathy Burgess’s section 1983 claim as a matter of law. The

Case 3:01-cv-04098-MJJ Document 239 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Court disagrees with Defendants that the facts relevant to equitable tolling contained in the Cathy

Burgess declaration constitute a “sham affidavit” that must be disregarded. None of the alleged

contradictions that Defendants identify are clear or irreconcilable enough to render the declaration a

“sham.” 

The Court also finds that, because the statute of limitations was tolled for Elum and Shela

Burgess’ claims during their minority, under California Civil Code Section 352, the section 1983 claims

brought by these two plaintiffs are timely on the record before the Court.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-04098-MJJ Document 239 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 2