## Facts

- Haig Garabedian, a real estate agent, had permission from HUD to inspect and show HUD-owned homes.
- On June 3, 1987, while inspecting a HUD-owned residence, Garabedian slipped on debris and fell into an empty swimming pool, suffering serious injuries.
- On or about May 6, 1988, Garabedian filed an administrative tort claim with HUD under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) but did not name Steven Skochko.
- HUD denied the claim by letter dated July 25, 1988, stating the property was managed by Skochko as an independent contractor and disclaiming responsibility for his negligence; Garabedian asserted he first learned of the independent-contractor relationship from this letter.
- In August 1988, Garabedian sued the United States and Skochko in federal district court.
- After Finley v. United States, the federal court dismissed Skochko without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over a non-federal defendant.
- In September 1989, more than two years after the injury, Garabedian filed a California state-court negligence action against Skochko.

## Issues

1. Whether the pendency of an FTCA administrative claim and related federal litigation against the United States tolls California’s personal-injury statute of limitations for a state-law claim against a private independent contractor.
2. Whether equitable tolling applies to make timely a state-law negligence action filed after expiration of the limitations period when the plaintiff previously pursued FTCA administrative and federal remedies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal after the trial court sustained Skochko’s demurrer without leave to amend.
- The court held the one-year California limitations period for personal injury actions was not tolled by the FTCA administrative process or the federal action as to Skochko.
- The court held equitable tolling did not apply because the required conditions were not met, including timely notice to Skochko and a timely action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- California personal-injury claims (then governed by former Code Civ. Proc. § 340(3)) accrue at injury and must be filed within the statutory period absent tolling.
- FTCA procedures and limitations governing claims against the United States do not suspend state statutes of limitation for claims against non-federal defendants, such as independent contractors.
- Equitable tolling may suspend a limitations period only when the defendant receives timely notice, the defendant is not unfairly prejudiced, and the plaintiff acts reasonably and in good faith; it does not revive a claim already time-barred.
- A prior action that is jurisdictionally defective as to a defendant does not supply a basis to toll state limitations periods for later-filed claims against that defendant.

## Conclusion

The court held that pursuing an FTCA administrative claim and a federal action against the United States did not toll California’s limitations period for a negligence claim against an independent contractor dismissed from federal court for lack of jurisdiction, and equitable tolling did not render the late-filed state action timely.


Garabedian v. Skochko, 232 Cal. App. 3d 836, 283 Cal. Rptr. 802 (Ct. App. 1991)