Home>Articles>Identity Theft

California State Capitol. (Photo: Katy Grimes for California Globe)

Identity Theft

A person must establish that they are a victim of identity theft by a preponderance of the evidence

By Chris Micheli, September 17, 2026 2:30 am

Title 1.81.3 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code deals with identity theft.

Section 1798.92 defines the terms “claimant,” “identity theft,” “personal identifying information,” and “victim of identity theft.”

Section 1798.93 authorizes a person to bring an action against a claimant to establish that the person is a victim of identity theft in connection with the claimant’s claim against that person. If the claimant has brought an action to recover on its claim against the person, the person may file a cross-complaint to establish that the person is a victim of identity theft in connection with the claimant’s claim.

A person must establish that they are a victim of identity theft by a preponderance of the evidence. A person who proves that they are a victim of identity theft, as to a particular claim, is entitled to a judgment providing all six of the specified items, as appropriate.

Section 1798.94 states that an action or cross-complaint brought under this title that joins other claimants as defendants in the same action or cross-complaint is deemed to comply with Section 379 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 1798.95 requires a court to have continuing jurisdiction over an action or cross-complaint filed pursuant to this title in order to provide for the joinder of related causes of action based on the theft of the same person’s identity and the joinder of further defendants based upon the theft of the same person’s identity, regardless of whether a final judgment has been entered as to any defendant.

Section 1798.96 says that any action brought pursuant to this title or any joinder of a defendant may be brought within four years of the date the person who alleges that he or she is a victim of identity theft knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the existence of facts which would give rise to the bringing of the action or joinder of the defendant.

Section 1798.97 explains that this title does not apply to a transaction subject to Section 1747.10. Also, nothing is this title is to be construed to affect a claimant’s rights and remedies against a person who perpetrates identity theft or against any person who used or possessed the credit, goods, services, or property obtained by identity theft.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Latest posts by Chris Micheli (see all)
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *