Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02517, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02517    Hearing Date: June 17, 2024    Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     June 17, 2024                              

TRIAL DATE:              No Trial Date Set

CASE:                               NIDAL OUDEH, an individual, v. HUANG CHEN, an individual; YU JIAYANG, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20.

CASE NO.:                     23AHCV02517

DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE

OBJECTING PARTY:        Defendant Huang Chen (“Defendant”).

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Nidal Oudeh (“Plaintiff”).  

SERVICE OF MOTION:    Timely filed and served January 22, 2024

OPPOSITION:                      No opposition filed

REPLY:                                 No reply filed     

RELIEF REQUESTED       Compensatory damages

Defendant objects to the first and second causes of action for Motor Vehicle pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e).

Defendant objects to the first and second causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, on the grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint was not timely filed within the statutory time period.

BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff Nidal Oudeh (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Huang Chen (“Chen”), Yu Jiayang (“Jiayang”), and DOES 1-20, (collectively “Defendants”) for: (1) motor vehicle negligence, and (2) general negligence.

Plaintiff alleges that on September 1, 2021, Defendants Chen and Jiayang negligently operated their vehicles in the scope of their employment, causing their vehicles to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle on S. Ramona Ave. 345ft North of Nemark Ave., Monterrey Park, CA 91754. (Compl., ¶¶ MV-1, GN-1.)

            On January 22, 2024, Defendant Chen filed a demurrer.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer to all causes of action is SUSTAINED.

LEGAL STANDARD

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. section 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Meet and Confer 

Before filing a demurrer, the moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading and obviate the need for filing the demurrer.  (C.C.P. §430.41.)  

Defendant’s counsel, Michelle C. Marder of Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Affiliates states that on January 18, 2024, she met and conferred telephonically with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the instant motion, and it was left that Marder’s office would file the instant Demurrer. (Marder Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant’s declaration demonstrates a good faith effort to resolve the issues in the instant motion out of court.  Therefore, Defendant’s demurrer is proper. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s complaint is untimely because it was not filed within the two-year statute of limitation for personal injury claims. (Demurrer, p. 4, 5.)

The proper statute of limitations, per the California Code of Civil Procedure is within 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. (C.C.P., § 335.1)

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim to support the first and section cause of action for Motor Vehicle and General Negligence injuries suffered on September 1, 2021. (Demurrer, pp. 3-5.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint was untimely filed on October 30, 2023, and it should have been filed by September 1, 2023. (Demurrer, pp. 4, 5.) By initiating this action on October 30, 2023, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is precluded from further litigation on the issue of personal injury. (Demurrer, p. 5.)

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for motor vehicle negligence pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) is sustained. (c)(1)

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s complaint for property damages remains viable. (Demurrer, p. 5.)

The proper statute of limitations for an action for taking, detaining, or injuring goods or chattels, including an action for the specific recovery of personal property is three years. (C.C.P. § 338).

Plaintiff’s complaint also asserts recovery for property damage arising from the September 1, 2023, motor vehicle collision. Under the statute of limitations, Plaintiff’s October 30, 2023, complaint including this claim remains timely filed.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for motor vehicle negligence is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for general negligence is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving Party to give notice and prepare judgment.

Dated:   June 17, 2024                                             ___________________________________

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org