Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV03051, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03051    Hearing Date: February 10, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS MARISSA MARTINEZ, FABIOLA MARTINEZ AND ROGELIO MARTINEZ TO COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED WITHOUT leave to amend as the statute of limitations bars the action AND/OR Martinez Defendants are improperly joined.  (A proposed order has been filed.)

 

Background

 

This case arises from motor vehicle accidents that happened on different dates and involved different parties.

 

On September 16, 2024, Plaintiffs Saul Romero Ortega and Josue Romero Ortega filed suit against Defendants Fabiola Martinez, Marissa Martinez and Rogelio Martinez (collectively, “Martinez Defendants”) and Kate Li, James Kwan, and Wendy Kwan.[1]

 

On December 10, 2024, the Martinez Defendants filed the instant demurrer.

 

On December 24, 2024, Defendant Li filed her answer along with a cross-complaint against Martinez Defendants for IMPLIED INDEMNITY and TOTAL INDEMNITY; DECLARATORY RELIEF and APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT.[2]

 

On January 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.

 

On February 3, 2025, Defendants filed their reply.

The parties have a CMC set for 2/19/25.[3]

 

Discussion

 

Defendants demur to the complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10(d) and (e) on the following grounds:

 

1.     The negligence COA fails as it is barred by the two-year statute of limitations (SOL) under CCP section 335.1 and

2.      There is a misjoinder of parties because the March 26, 2022 accident and the November 7, 2022 accident do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions/occurrences, and there are no question of fact common to the named co-defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 379.[4]

For reasons to be discussed below, the court agrees with moving Defendants on both fronts.

 

1.     Statute of Limitations

Martinez Defendants argue that their accident occurred on 3/26/22 such that with a 2-year SOL,[5] the action is time barred as it should have been filed by 3/26/24, but it was filed on 9/26/24.[6]

 

In opposition, Plaintiffs aver that pursuant to CCP section 338, a plaintiff has three years (from the date of incident) to file a complaint for property damage.[7]

 

Here, however, this is not an action for property damage; the complaint seeks damages for pain and suffering. (See Complaint p. 3 of 5, ¶11.) What is more, if this is an action for property damage, then the action may improperly be designated as an unlimited case.

 

Therefore, on its face, the action against the Martinez Defendants is barred by the SOL.

 

2.     Misjoinder

A demurrer will lie when there is a defect in or misjoinder of parties. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 430.10, subd. (d).)

 

Here, the complaint pertains to two motor vehicle accidents that occurred on different DATES—one that happened on March 26, 2022 and the other on November 7, 2022—that happened at two different LOCATIONS—one in the city of OCEANSIDE (San Diego) and the other in the city of WEST COVINA—and that involved different PARTIES—the Martinez Defendants versus Plaintiffs and presumably Li and Defendants Kwan versus Plaintiffs.

 

Though it is unclear which parties were involved in which accident (what date and location), the demurrer explains that the March 2022 Accident occurred in Oceanside California, not West Covina and that the Martinez Defendants accident relates to the March 2022 Accident.[8] Based thereon, Defendants argue that this court does not have subject matter of the matter. (See e.g., Reply p. 3:22-24.) Not necessarily as the problem is one of venue i.e., the county within California that would the “proper” place for trail of the action. Generally, venue rules are not jurisdictional. (See Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass’n (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 121-122; see also Williams v. Superior Court (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 101, 115 [“It is well established that venue is not a matter that goes to the fundamental jurisdiction of the superior court to hear and rule on a case.”].)

 

Notwithstanding, the Martinez Defendants are merely persons who are alleged to have committed the same type of tort as Li and Defendants Kwan and they have no interest in the other accident. Accordingly, as the accidents do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions/occurrences and there is no question of fact common to the named co-defendants, then the Martinez Defendants are not necessary (let alone indispensable) parties to this action. (See Demurrer p. 6, citing Oppenheimer v. Ashburn (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 624, 634.)

 

Plaintiffs wholly fail to address this argument, and “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving that amendment would cure the legal defect, and may meet this burden on appeal.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468.)

 

Therefore, the demurrer on the grounds of misjoinder is SUSTAINED WITHOUT leave to amend.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as the action is both time-barred and fails for misjoinder.  


[1] All Defendants have been served.

 

[2] According to the Case Management Statement filed by Defendant Li on 1/29/25, the Defendants in the cross-complaint have not been served because Defendant Li has “been unable to locate these parties thus far for service of the cross-complaint.” (¶3.)

 

[3] According to the Case Management Statement filed by Defendant Li, no trial date has been set; trial is expected to last 3-5 days; a settlement conference has not yet been scheduled; and various discovery has been propounded (e.g., Defense Medical Examination of Plaintiff will be completed within 120 days).

[4] “(a) All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them: (1) Any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or (2) A claim, right, or interest adverse to them in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.(b) It is not necessary that each defendant be interested as to every cause of action or as to all relief prayed for. Judgment may be given against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.(c) Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he or she is entitled to redress, he or she may join two or more defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined between the parties.”

[5] Pursuant to CCP section 335.1, “[w]ithin two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.”

 

[6] According to Defendants, to the extent that Plaintiffs may argue that the failure to file the Complaint as to the March 26, 2022 accident within the statutory period was a result of excusable neglect, sanctioned under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), which they did not in opposition, Plaintiffs’ complaint and accompanying documents were signed on December 14, 2023, months before the statute of limitation expires.

 

[7] Plaintiffs and the Martinez Defendants have already settled the bodily injury claims and are in the process of finalizing settlement documents. (Opp. p. 3, fn. 1.)

 

[8] As stated in the Reply, the LASC CIV 109 Form requires plaintiffs to provide an address to explain the basis for their chosen filing location. Plaintiffs’ Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location uses West Covina, CA 91791 as the reason for filing in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Reply p. 3.)