In Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, after the defendants rejected the plaintiffs' timely filed damage claims, the plaintiffs filed a tort action against the defendants in federal court, alleging violations of both state and federal law. Nearly two and a half months after the defendants moved to dismiss the federal action for lack of jurisdiction, and after expiration of the six-month period to bring suit, the plaintiffs filed an action in state court in anticipation of an adverse ruling on the motion. The federal suit was dismissed the following week without prejudice to refiling in state court after the district court concluded that a federal civil rights action would not lie against public entities. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the state court action because the complaint was not timely filed. (Addison, supra, at pp. 315-316.) In concluding that the limitations period did not bar the plaintiffs' claims, the court applied "the well established doctrine of 'equitable tolling'" to relieve the plaintiff of an otherwise untimely filing of the personal injury action. (Addison, supra, at p. 316.) The Addison court stated: "It is fundamental that the primary purpose of statutes of limitation is to prevent the assertion of stale claims by plaintiffs who have failed to file their action until evidence is no longer fresh and witnesses are no longer available. . . . The statutes . . . serve a distinct public purpose, preventing the assertion of demands which through the unexcused lapse of time, have been rendered difficult or impossible to defend. However, courts have adhered to a general policy which favors relieving plaintiff from the bar of a limitations statute when, possessing several legal remedies he, reasonably and in good faith, pursues one designed to lessen the extent of his injuries or damage." (Addison, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 317-318.) Citing its prior decision in Bollinger v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 399, 410, the court added: "'This court is not powerless to formulate rules of procedure where justice demands it. Indeed, it has shown itself ready to adapt rules of procedure to serve the ends of justice where technical forfeitures would unjustifiably prevent a trial on the merits.'" (Addison, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 318-319.) Applying these principles to the plaintiffs' case, the court explained: "Application of the doctrine of equitable tolling requires timely notice, and lack of prejudice, to the defendant, and reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff. These elements seemingly are present here. As noted, the federal court, without prejudice, declined to assert jurisdiction over a timely filed state law cause of action and plaintiffs thereafter promptly asserted that cause in the proper state court. Unquestionably, the same set of facts may be the basis for claims under both federal and state law. We discern no reason of policy which would require plaintiffs to file simultaneously two separate actions based upon the same facts in both state and federal courts since 'duplicative proceedings are surely inefficient, awkward and laborious.' Furthermore, since the federal court action was timely filed, defendants were notified of the action and had the opportunity to begin gathering their evidence and preparing their defense. No prejudice to defendants is shown, for plaintiffs' state court action was filed within one week of the dismissal of the federal suit. To apply the doctrine of equitable tolling in this case, in our view, satisfies the policy underlying the statute of limitations without ignoring the competing policy of avoiding technical and unjust forfeitures." (Addison, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 319.) In Addison v. State of California, plaintiffs filed a tort action in federal court alleging violations of state and federal law. After defendants moved to dismiss the federal action for lack of jurisdiction, plaintiffs refiled their claims in state court. The Supreme Court held that the state court action was timely because the statute of limitations was tolled during the period during which plaintiffs' claims were pending in federal court. (Id. at pp. 315-316.) It explained: "It is fundamental that the primary purpose of statutes of limitation is to prevent the assertion of stale claims by plaintiffs who have failed to file their action until evidence is no longer fresh and witnesses are no longer available. 'The right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.'The statutes, accordingly, serve a distinct public purpose, preventing the assertion of demands which through the unexcused lapse of time, have been rendered difficult or impossible to defend. However, courts have adhered to a general policy which favors relieving plaintiff from the bar of a limitations statute when, possessing several legal remedies he, reasonably and in good faith, pursues one designed to lessen the extent of his injuries or damage." (Id. at p. 317.) Application of this policy, the court said, requires "timely notice, and lack of prejudice, to the defendant, and reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff." (Id. at p. 319.) The court found these elements were met in the case before it because the same set of facts were relevant to the federal and state claims, defendants were timely notified of the action and had the opportunity to begin gathering their evidence and preparing their defense, and no prejudice to defendant was shown. (Ibid.) The court concluded: "We have previously indicated that the equitable tolling doctrine fosters the policy of the law of this state which favors avoiding forfeitures and allowing good faith litigants their day in court. As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the . . . limitations statute.In our view, the balance in this case must be struck in plaintiffs' favor. If the tolling doctrine were not applied, plaintiffs would be denied a hearing on the merits of their claim." (Id. at pp. 320-321.) The California Supreme Court outlined the policies behind the equitable tolling doctrine, which include not only the avoidance of forfeitures (to allow a good faith litigant to have her day in court), but also an important balancing process: "As with other general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the Tort Claims Act limitations statute." (Id. at p. 321.) The statutory policies of the Act were intended to promote the earliest possible opportunity to investigate and settle just claims, and to correct any unsafe conditions or practices. These unique limitations periods in the Act serve to promote uniformity and avoid undue delay in bringing lawsuits against public entities. (Id. at p. 982.)