Statute of Limitations for Common Law Fraud / Deceit in California

Overview

California uses a 2-year statute of limitations for common law fraud / deceit claims under the general limitations rule, Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. No claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified in the supplied jurisdiction data, so the general/default 2-year period is the baseline deadline for this page.

Fraud and deceit claims often turn on when the claim accrued, not just when the wrongful act happened. In many cases, California’s discovery rule may delay the start of the clock until the claimant discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts supporting the claim. That makes both the conduct date and the discovery date important.

If you are using DocketMath, this page gives you the California baseline for fraud/deceit timing, and the calculator can help you test how different dates affect the deadline.

Limitation period

California’s general limitations period for common law fraud / deceit is 2 years. The statute cited for that period is CCP § 335.1.

As a practical matter, that means a fraud or deceit claim generally must be filed within two years of the date the claim accrues. In many fraud cases, accrual is tied to discovery of the fraud or the facts that reasonably should have triggered discovery.

How the deadline is usually measured

A simple way to think about it:

1. Identify the date the fraud was discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered.
2. Add 2 years from that date.
3. File before that deadline.

Why the date matters

The filing deadline can change depending on which date starts the clock:

• Conduct date only: the deadline is usually 2 years after the alleged fraud.
• Discovery date: the deadline may be later if the fraud was not known right away.
• Reasonable-discovery date: the deadline may move earlier if the facts should have prompted investigation sooner.

Practical example

If you are not sure which date controls, treat the discovery question as the main issue to verify. In fraud cases, that is often where the deadline analysis changes.

Key exceptions

California fraud / deceit claims can fall outside the basic 2-year window if an exception, tolling rule, or later-accrual theory applies.

Discovery rule

The most common issue is the discovery rule. If the fraud was hidden or not reasonably knowable, the clock may begin when the claimant discovered the facts—or when a reasonable person should have discovered them.

Ask:

• When did the claimant first learn of the misrepresentation or concealment?
• Were there warning signs earlier?
• Would a reasonable person have investigated sooner?

Concealment

If the defendant actively concealed the wrongdoing, the limitations period may not begin until the fraud is uncovered or should have been uncovered through reasonable diligence. Concealment does not create an unlimited filing period, though. Once enough facts appear to raise suspicion, the claimant still has to act promptly.

Tolling rules

Some tolling doctrines may pause or extend the deadline depending on the facts, including:

• minority or legal disability tolling,
• defendant absence from the state in some circumstances,
• bankruptcy stay effects,
• other statutory suspension rules.

Deadline checklist

Statute citation

The general statute provided for California’s limitations period is Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.

Because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the supplied jurisdiction data, the 2-year default is the operative reference point for this page.

For quick access to the tool, use: /tools/statute-of-limitations

Use the calculator

DocketMath’s statute-of-limitations calculator helps turn the legal rule into a practical filing deadline.

Inputs that matter

You can usually enter:

• the date the alleged fraud or concealment happened,
• the date the fraud was discovered,
• the date it reasonably should have been discovered, if different,
• any event that could pause or extend the deadline.

How the output changes

Different dates can produce different results:

• Conduct date only: shows a simple 2-year deadline from the act.
• Discovery date: may show a later deadline if accrual starts at discovery.
• Reasonable-discovery date: may show an earlier deadline if the facts should have prompted action sooner.

Best use cases

Use the calculator for:

• intake screening,
• complaint drafting,
• deadline verification,
• comparing alternative accrual dates.

If you have more than one possible trigger date, run each one separately. That makes it easier to see whether the claim is comfortably timely or close to the deadline.

Sources and references

Start with the primary authority for California and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.

• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335

Related reading

• Choosing the right statute of limitations tool for Vermont — How to choose the right calculator
• Statute of limitations in Singapore: how to estimate the deadline — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Choosing the right statute of limitations tool for Connecticut — How to choose the right calculator