Hotton v. L & S Land Co.
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-05500
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hotton v. L & S Land Co., Judge Illston ordered Hotton to explain why his contract claim should not be dismissed as untimely.
Mark Hotton and the defendants named in his alleged promissory-note dispute.
What happened
In Hotton v. L & S Land Co., Mark Hotton, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued over an alleged unpaid $100,000 promissory note. He alleged that the defendants borrowed the money in 2005 and failed to repay it.
The court found that the claim appeared to be filed too late. The note called for repayment by May 5, 2006, but Hotton filed the federal action in August 2019. The court said California’s usual four-year deadline, even with possible extensions, appeared not to make the claim timely.
Judge Illston did not dismiss the case at this stage. Instead, she ordered Hotton to explain by January 10, 2020, why the claim should not be dismissed as barred by the filing deadline, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal.
The detailed version
- Hotton v. L & S Land Co. · No. 3:19-cv-05500
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 9, 2019
Background
Mark Hotton, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed this civil action without a lawyer and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal screening statute for people proceeding without paying the filing fee.
The complaint alleged a breach of contract. Hotton claimed that he loaned the defendants $100,000 at 10% interest on May 5, 2005, with repayment due after 12 months. He alleged that the defendants repeatedly promised to pay the promissory note but made no payments of principal or interest. Hotton invoked federal jurisdiction based on the alleged citizenship of the parties and the amount in dispute.
The court treated the complaint as filed on August 12, 2019, under the prisoner-mailbox rule, based on the date Hotton apparently gave the mailing to prison officials. The complaint was stamped filed on August 30, 2019.
Statute-of-limitations issue
The court explained that a California breach-of-contract claim based on a written instrument generally must be filed within four years. The promissory note required repayment by May 5, 2006, so the ordinary deadline appeared to have been in May 2010. Hotton did not file this federal action until August 2019.
The court also discussed possible reasons the deadline might be extended, including limited tolling for certain incarcerated plaintiffs, the discovery rule, and equitable tolling when a person reasonably and in good faith pursues another legal remedy. The court concluded that the limitations defense appeared complete and obvious from the complaint. It stated that even two years of tolling for incarceration would not extend the deadline enough to make the complaint timely, although it noted that Hotton may not have been incarcerated when the claim became due.
Ruling
Judge Susan Illston ordered Hotton to show cause—meaning to explain—why the complaint should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. She required a written response by January 10, 2020. The order warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal. The opinion does not itself report that the case was dismissed; it is an order requiring a response before the contemplated dismissal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.