what is the time limit between being extorted and filing a tort action
for extortion? I was extorted out of family support via written threat
from attorney that i would be sued over an unrelated matter if I did
not give in.

Hello Sewey!
California time limits are set forth in Title II of Part II of the
Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), at Sections 312 through 366.3.  Many
types of actions are specifically described, but for others, you have
to do some interpretation to make sure that your action falls within
the "category."

Extortion is not specifically described in any of the statutes of
limitation, and there are no California cases that apply a civil
statute of limitation to an extortion claim.  (The California cases
dealing with extortion are criminal cases, and don't apply here).  So
we have to examine a few of them, and reason by analogy.  The most
potentially relevant ones are:

CCP Section 335.1 provides a two-year limitation on actions for
"assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual
caused by the wrongful
act or neglect of another."

CCP Section 340.6 provides for a one-year limitation on actions for
professional malpractice against an attorney.  However, this section
does not apply to you -- it applies to the attorney being sued by his
own client, not by his adversary.

CCP Section 343 is the catch-all provision.  It provides a four-year
limitation period for any action not described in the rest of the
chapter.

(California Codes are available at the following link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/index.html)

The kind of "extortion" you describe is very closely analogous to the
tort of "abuse of process."  "Abuse of process" is when somebody uses
a Court process to achieve an objective that is totally unrelated to
what that process is supposed to be for.  For example, if I file a
lawsuit against you, NOT because I think you did something wrong, but
because I want to be able, in discovery, to find out where your
daughter lives -- that would be an abuse of the Court process.

Abuse of process is also not specifically mentioned in any of the
statutes of limitation.  But it is well settled that the two-year
limitation period of Section 335.1 applies to abuse of process.
See Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857; Simons
v. Edouarde (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 826.  (Both of those cases applied
the former ONE-year limitations period of that section, but the
one-year period was recently expanded to two years.)

The limitations period begins to run when the injury occurs. Kappel v.
Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1467.

So the statute of limitations applying to a claim of extortion would
be two years from the date of injury -- in your case, the date upon
which you "gave in."

However, something else to consider here is whether the attorney's
conduct was privileged under Civil Code Section 47(b).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/43-53.html about one-third
of the way down the page.
Civil Code Section 47(b) provides that NEARLY ALL communications made
in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged.  This
includes communications outside of court that are made to further the
object of the litigation.  So the attorney has an argument that his
threat to you was intended to further the object of the support
proceedings, to get them settled on terms favorable to his client.
Settlement communications have been held to be absolutely privileged.
"If the statement is made with a good faith belief in a legally viable
claim and in serious contemplation of litigation, then the statement
is sufficiently connected to litigation and will be protected by the
litigation privilege. If it applies, the privilege is absolute." 
Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc. 123 Cal.App.4th 903.
"More important, 'communications made in connection with litigation do
not necessarily fall outside the privilege merely because they are, or
are alleged to be, fraudulent, perjurious, unethical, or even illegal'
assuming they are logically related to litigation." Blanchard v.
DIRECTV, Inc. 123 Cal.App.4th 903, quoting from Kashian v. Harriman
(2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 892, 920.

So the litigation privilege is VERY broad.  However, it can be
defeated by a showing that the threat was NOT made in good faith or in
"serious contemplation of litigation."  FUHRMAN v. CALIFORNIA
SATELLITE SYSTEMS (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 408.  So that is something to
consider when you seek professional legal advice on this claim.

I hope this answer has been helpful.  Please don't hesitate to ask if
there is anything further I can provide.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by sewey-ga on 30 Jan 2006 20:19 PST

thank you for your citation of sections and interpretations; RICO
suits involving extortion seem to have a time limit of four to five
years from the act or injury so i ask you to reflect on your deduction
that extortion would fall under a shorter time limit, is there case
law that would reflect this? for additional fee, of course. In fact,
if you can find case law on torts for extortion in which the time
limit is spelled out or implied by the time between injury and
successful suit, that information would be worth $100.00.

---

Clarification of Answer by hagan-ga on 31 Jan 2006 06:33 PST

Sewey, I'm happy to provide clarification -- however, by rating this
answer already, I think you've foreclosed the option of providing an
additional fee for the research.  I also wish you'd waited for the
clarification before rating the answer.
You are correct that the statute of limitations on a civil RICO claim
is four years.  Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates,
Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987).
However, in order for your case to fall under RICO, you would need
more than the mere fact of extortion.  The RICO (Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute is 18 USC Chapter 96, so
it is governed by Federal law; but California courts have concurrent
jurisdiction over civil RICO claims.
RICO claims require that the plaintiff establish a "pattern of
racketeering activity," using one or more of the activities set forth
in 18 United States Code section 1961(1).
18 USC Section 1961(1) includes "extortion" as racketeering activity. 
California law is in accord.  Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220
Cal.App.3d 59.  However, you must still establish a pattern of
racketeering activity.  That means at least two related instances of
extortion, and more likely a court would require several.
I'm sorry my answer didn't completely suit, and I do hope this
clarification was helpful.  If you'd like more information about civil
RICO, by all means post a new question and I'll be happy to answer it.

The answer could help more with case law demonstrating how this has
been interpreted, as RICO cases are similar and yet different.

This would depend on jurisdiction. What is yours?

Alameda County. the time for RICO suits is four or five years from the
extortion. I am suing an attorney and ex for extortion but it does not
appear to meet the criteria for RICO, ie pattern, etc. Extortion:
threat to sue over unrelated issue (in which neither party has
standing) to cause party to waive support.

that's Alameda County, California

thank you. 1. i was threatened with a lawsuit over alleged trust
embezzlement by a grantor who had no standing vis a vis an irrevocalbe
trust we both founded if I did not capitulate. So, he could not sue.
Threat reiterated after i had a probate attorney advise his attorney
that he had no standing. The threat contained 1. intend to publish
false, damaging accusations in suit availible online for public to
read 2. he knew it was false as we got yearly statements from trustee
and he never objected 3. he perjured himself year of divorce re:
income to lower support and told me to send bills to the trust. 
extortion: threat to expose person over some disgrace, real or
otherwise to cause other party to take or refrain from taking an
action 4 to obtain property or gain. penal code extortion, extortion
to obtain signature, sending written extortion threats. so the case
you found is gold. any more??? litigation privilege lost cases? courts
have ruled 1. it must be logically related to litigated issue 2. some
hope of prevailing 3. threat made with some expectation one could
follow thru. to paraphrase. accusation of trust abuse not relevant to
motion in family court 'change of circumstances" to lower support, 2.
no standing 3. no hope of proceeding with a tort. what do you think?

Sewey, I'm afraid the question "what do I think" goes far beyond the
original question, which is "what is the statute of limitations?"  The
statute of limitations I can answer.  "What do I think" is going into
the realm of providing legal advice, and I can't do that.
Best of luck.