## Facts

- Michele Noel Pugliese sued her former spouse, Dante J. Pugliese, for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations based on an alleged long-term pattern of domestic abuse.
- The parties married in 1989; Michele sought dissolution in 2002.
- Michele alleged physical abuse began shortly after marriage, ended around April 2001, and that emotional abuse continued until April 2004.
- Michele filed the civil complaint on April 2, 2004.
- Dante moved in limine to exclude evidence of assaults and batteries occurring more than three years before the complaint, relying on the three-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure § 340.15.
- The trial court granted the motion, excluding all domestic-violence evidence predating April 2001.
- Michele sought a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate the evidentiary exclusion.

## Issues

1. Whether Code of Civil Procedure § 340.15 bars recovery (and evidence) for domestic-violence acts occurring more than three years before filing, even when the plaintiff alleges a continuous course of abuse with a last act within the limitations period.
2. Whether domestic violence claims under § 340.15 may be treated as a continuing tort accruing on the date of the last act of domestic violence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and directed the trial court to set aside its order granting the motion in limine.
- The court held the continuing tort doctrine applies to domestic-violence claims governed by § 340.15.
- A plaintiff may seek damages for all acts of domestic abuse during the relationship if the plaintiff proves a continuing course of abusive conduct that extends into the three-year limitations period.
- Writ review was appropriate because the ruling presented an important legal question and substantially impaired the plaintiff’s ability to prove a pattern-based claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.15, the limitations period runs from the “date of the last act of domestic violence.”
- Where wrongful conduct is continuous and causes cumulative harm, the continuing tort doctrine permits accrual at the last wrongful act and allows recovery for the entire course of conduct.
- In domestic violence actions, older acts are not automatically time-barred if they are part of an ongoing course of abuse culminating within the limitations period; proof of continuity is for the trier of fact.
- A pretrial evidentiary ruling that effectively prevents proof of a pattern-based claim may be reviewed by extraordinary writ when it raises a significant legal issue.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that § 340.15 permits domestic violence claims to proceed under a continuing tort theory: when a plaintiff files within three years of the last act of domestic violence and proves a continuing course of abusive conduct, the plaintiff may present evidence and seek damages for earlier related abuse occurring outside the three-year window.


Pugliese v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)