California Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c).
340. Within one year:
(c) An action for libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction of a person below the age of legal consent, or by a depositor against a bank for the payment of a forged or raised check, or a check that bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or against any person who boards or feeds an animal or fowl or who engages in the practice of veterinary medicine as defined in Section 4826 of the Business and Professions Code, for that person’s neglect resulting in injury or death to an animal or fowl in the course of boarding or feeding the animal or fowl or in the course of the practice of veterinary medicine on that animal or fowl.
We wouldn’t necessarily know yet, but one way or another, it’s done.
About the author
Stephanie Zvan is one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She serves on the board of Secular Woman. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.
Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.
Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.
9 thoughts on “Within One Year”
So I guess… something that could have happened isn’t going to happen?
It means someone probably hasn’t carried through on his threat to sue.
I was a bit puzzled by this topic, but presumably we’re talking about the Ben Radford/Karen Stollznow harassment situation here?
So BR was full of crap. Now that was a surprise…
Radford filed. Shermer is the one whose timer just ran out.
Hmm. That makes me wonder. If no suit has been filed, would that mean that anyone can repeat what was said with confidence (that they won’t be sued)? Because presumably if what was said was libelous, there would have been a prior suit. I’m just thinking it would lower the credibility of the plaintiff should they try to bring a suit against another person. Anyone more knowledgeable about the law?
Ahhhh, if we take a leaf out of the True Skeptictrade; book, that means he admitted his guilt, right? Because if he was innocent, why didn’t he sue?
I don’t understand the part about fowl, though 😉
I wonder if the people who contributed to Shermer’s offense fund still think it was money well spent.
The ones who don’t probably don’t for a different reason, like finding out what he did to Pamela Gay. When you contribute to a legal fund, you don’t really expect to be able to drive the action.
Wonder where that $8,000 + will go now.
Comments are closed.