Statute of Limitations

State Law

In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 980 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1992)
    Legal bill accompanied by time sheets = open book account under CCP §337(a)

    § §  546, 108, 549(d)

In re Smith, 352 B.R. 702, 706 (9th Cir. BAP 2006)
    “. . . § 108(c)(1) does not operate without regard to existing nonbankruptcy law to stop the running of any periods of limitation.” The Arizona Supreme Court held that § 108 did not toll the running of the statute for renewal of judgments, so the original limitation date applied.

In re Spirtos, 221 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2000)
    Under § 108(c), the period of duration of a judgment lien under CCP § 683.020 will not expire until 30 days after all the assets in the debtor's estate have been finally distributed.

In re National Environmental Waste Corp., 200 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2000)
    Under § 108, state statute of limitations is extended “where recovery of the claim will substantially benefit the creditors of the estate, even though the claim was not explicitly specified in the plan of reorganization.”

In re Gardenhire, 209 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2000)
    Statutory deadline for filing of IRS proof of claim was not equitably tolled, even though there was an improper dismissal of the case resulting from clerical error

In re DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group, Inc., 87 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1007 (1996)
    Liquidation estate’s recovery action is time-barred when brought within two years of trustee’s appointment but more than two years after start of bankruptcy case

In re Hosseinpour-Esfahani, 198 B.R. 574 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996)
    Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance complaint filed more than 2 years after appointment time-barred

In re IRFM, Inc., 65 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1220 (1996)
    546(a) - 2 year statute of limitations runs from date Chapter 11 is filed.

In re Olsen, 36 F.3d 71 (9th Cir. 1994)
    Equitable tolling applies to § 549(d)

In re United Ins. Mgmt., Inc.,  14 F.3d 1380 (9th Cir. 1994)
    Under the equitable tolling doctrine, where a party “remains in ignorance of [a wring] without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part, the bar of the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered, though there be no special circumstances or efforts o the part of the party committing the fraud to conceal it from the knowledge of the other party.” Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 111 S.Ct. 2773 (1991)
    Applied to 546(a) but facts did not justify application here.

In re Conco Building Supplies, Inc., 102 B.R. 190  (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)
    Two year period under § 546(a)(1) does not begin to run until permanent trustee appointed.

In re Hunters Run Ltd. Partnership, 875 F.2d 1425 (9th Cir. 1989)
    108 applies generally to state law statute of limitations or duration.

In re Herzig, 96 B.R. 264 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)
    If two years under § 546(a)(1) has not run as of the date the case is closed, trustee may have remainder of the 2 year period in which to commence avoidance actions.

In re Petty, 93 B.R. 208 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1988)
    Trustee may reopen case and pursue preference because transfer not disclosed prior to case closing.