Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2019-00060239-CU-PN-CTL, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024

06/21/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Professional Negligence Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00060239-CU-PN-CTL TAYLOR VS PLACE [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Dismiss, 11/14/2023

Specially Appearing Defendants California Appellate Project, Jill Ellen Ishida, Vanessa Emily Place, Richard Lennon and Amy Griffin's Amended Motion to Dismiss Action with Prejudice is GRANTED.

Specially Appearing Defendants' (SAD) unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. (ROA 96.) SAD's unopposed reply request for judicial notice is granted. (ROA 113.) The summons and complaint must be served on a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant. (C.C.P., § 583.210(a).) An action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed. (Ibid.) In computing the time to serve, certain exceptions apply including the time during which the validity of service was the subject of litigation by the parties. (C.C.P., § 2083.240(c).) If service is not made within the time prescribed: (i) the action must not be further prosecuted and no further proceedings shall be held; (ii) the action must be dismissed by the court on a motion after notice to the parties. (C.C.P., § 583.250(a)(1)-(2).) 'The requirements of this article are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as expressly provided by statute.' (Id., at subd. (b).) Here, Plaintiff filed this action on November 13, 2019, and had three years or until November 13, 2022, to serve the summons and complaint. The three-year time period was extended for 11 months while the parties litigated SAD's motion to quash, which the Court granted on November 6, 2020. (ROA 57 – Minute Order dated Nov. 6, 2020.) Thus, Plaintiff was required to serve the summons and complaint by October 13, 2023, but did not do so. In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute these facts and deadlines.

Although the record reflects purported service on at least some of the defendants in February 2024, the time to serve expired before then and the action 'shall not be further prosecuted.' (C.C.P., § 583.250(a)(1).) The Court is required to grant this motion and dismiss the action.

Concluding Orders Plaintiff's (second) First Amended Complaint is dismissed as against Specially Appearing Defendants California Appellate Project, Jill Ellen Ishida, Vanessa Emily Place, Richard Lennon and Amy Griffin.

This ruling is dispositive of the case. This ruling also moots the OSC re Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed and that OSC is ordered off calendar.

All future dates are vacated.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3052215  55 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TAYLOR VS PLACE [E-FILE]  37-2019-00060239-CU-PN-CTL If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, this minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

The moving parties are ordered to serve notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by June 25, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3052215  55