Terry Quarry, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Doe I, Defendant and Respondent — Liu, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Liu dissents from the majority's conclusion that the plaintiffs' claims were subject to a one-year filing window in 2003 and therefore barred when discovered in 2006. She would construe the statutory revival and savings provisions to allow undiscovered claims against especially culpable third parties to proceed under the three-year discovery rule, either because those claims had not lapsed or because the savings clause preserved the applicable limitations period. Justice Corrigan, dissenting separately, likewise would affirm the Court of Appeal, reasoning that the savings clause excludes undiscovered claims from the one-year window.