Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00054755-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00054755-CU-PO-CTL WILLIS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant City of San Diego's request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

The court then rules as follows. Defendant City of San Diego's demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Although the City raises several grounds for demurrer, the court addresses only the statute of limitations as the court finds this issue dispositive.

It is undisputed that the applicable statute of limitations is the CCP § 335.1 two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. As pled, the incident giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred on November 7, 2020 [Cplt. ¶ Prem.L-1]. Court records in the related case [Sidia Willis v. San Diego County, et al, Case No. 37-2021-00037491-CU-MC-CTL] show that Plaintiff filed a petition for order for relief from claims statute [ROA 1 (37491 Case)] as well as a motion for relief from Government Code § 945.4 [ROA 22 (37491 Case)] and that Plaintiff's motion for relief was granted on August 12, 2022 [ROA 31 (37491 Case)]. Court records also show that Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's complaint in this case on December 19, 2023 [ROA 1 (54755 Case)], more than two-years after the date of the incident giving rise to Plaintiff's claims. As such, Plaintiff's complaint is barred by the CCP § 335.1 statute of limitations.

The only argument Plaintiff raises in opposition on the statute of limitations issue is under CCP § 473(b).

Plaintiff relies on Plaintiff's counsel's declaration wherein Plaintiff's counsel describes the reasons for the 'missed deadline.' However, none of the authorities Plaintiff relies on allow for relief under CCP § 473(b) for failure to comply with the applicable limitations period. The City provides authority to the contrary. See, Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Protection Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 927, 928.

Absent authority allowing for relief under CCP § 473(b), Plaintiff's counsel's mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect are not grounds to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff's equity-based argument fails for the same reasons.

Although Plaintiff seeks leave to amend, Plaintiff fails to proffer any facts that would avoid the bar of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the court finds Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability the complaint can be amended to plead a viable claim against the City. Accordingly, Defendant City of San Diego's demurrer is sustained WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1143 citing Titus v. Canyon Lake Property Owners Assn. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 906, 917. See also, Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Ruinello v. Murray (1951) 36 Cal.2d 687, 690.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100670  9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WILLIS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2023-00054755-CU-PO-CTL The City is ordered to submit a judgment of dismissal within 10 days of this ruling.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100670  9