Feliz v. County of Orange (2023) G060596 G060596; filed 5/19/23. ![[Files/CaseFiles/G060596.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/G060596.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Quoting Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State Dept. of Public Health (2020) 9 Cal.5th 710, 724-729. Equitable tolling was denied because the plaintiff did not act with objective reasonableness. > “[E]quitable tolling today applies when three ‘elements’ are present: ‘[(1)] timely notice, and [(2)] lack of prejudice, to the defendant, and [(3)] reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff.’ [Citation.] These requirements are designed to ‘balanc[e] . . . the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the [operative] limitations statute.’ [Citation.]” (Saint Francis, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 724- 725.) The party invoking equitable tolling bears the burden of proving its requirements. (In re Marriage of Zimmerman (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 900, 912.) — Feliz v. County of Orange (2023) G060596, slip op., p. 14. > In Saint Francis, our Supreme Court clarified that an alternative remedy need not be “viable” for equitable tolling to apply: “pursuit of a remedy ‘embarked upon in good faith, [yet] found to be defective for some reason,’ doesn’t foreclose a statute of limitations from being tolled.” (Ibid.) Yet the party’s effort must be “objectively reasonable,” meaning that its actions must be “fair, proper, and sensible in light of the circumstances.” (Id. at p. 729.) — Feliz v. County of Orange (2023) G060596, slip op., p. 15.