On July 30, 2021, plaintiff Mary Anito (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants William Robert Wright (“Defendant”) and John Doe using a form complaint (Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001).  In the complaint, filed in propria persona, Plaintiff checked the complaint boxes for “motor vehicle,” “property damage,” and “personal injury.”  In the caption space for “Defendant,” Plaintiff wrote “William Robert Wright (Driver) & John Doe (Vehicle Owner).”  In the section for “Jurisdiction,” Plaintiff indicates that the action is an unlimited civil case (exceeds $25,000).  In Item 2, Plaintiff indicates that the pleading consists of 5 pages with cover letter; but only 3 pages are included.  In Item 10 of the form complaint, Plaintiff indicates the cause of action for “Motor Vehicle” is attached and the statements preceding Item 10 apply to that cause of action.  Plaintiff does not attach any other forms to the complaint.  In Item 14, Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for compensatory damages according to proof. 

On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended form complaint (“FAC”).  The Clerk of the Court rejected the FAC because Plaintiff was required to obtain leave from the Court to file the amended pleadings.  

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended form complaint. The parties do not address, let alone acknowledge, Plaintiff’s filing of a second amended complaint (“SAC”). The parties treat the initial complaint as the operative complaint. 

On March 1, 2023, Defendant filed a reply, arguing Defendant did not waive his right to file a demurrer by agreeing to the Stipulation. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice whether Exhibit 2 attached to the Declaration of Shawn Rokni was successfully filed by Plaintiff on July 30, 2021.  Exhibit 2 is Plaintiff’s original complaint with the attachment setting forth facts in support of “Cause of Action 1 (Motor Vehicle) & Cause of Action 2 (General Negligence).”  (Rokni Decl., Ex. 2.) 

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is procedurally defective.  “A party requesting judicial notice of material under Evidence Code sections 452 or 453 must provide the court and each party with a copy of the material.  If the material is part of a file in the court in which the matter is being heard, the party must either make arrangements with the clerk to have the file in the courtroom at the time of the hearing or confirm with the clerk that the file is electronically accessible to the court.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.136, subd. (c)(2).)  Plaintiff has not confirmed with the clerk whether the file is electronically accessible to the court.  Notwithstanding this defect, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on July 30, 2021, is three pages in length and does not include any attachment setting forth facts in support of “Cause of Action 1 (Motor Vehicle) & Cause of Action 2 (General Negligence).” 

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.  (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.  [Citation.]”  (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)  Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations.  (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)   Judicial Council form complaints are not invulnerable to demurrer.  (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1482.) 

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)  “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)   

Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend.  (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)  Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Ibid.)  

 “Unless an amended complaint relates back to a timely filed original complaint, it will be barred by the statute of limitations.  [Citation.]  Under the relation-back doctrine, in order to avoid the statute of limitations, the amended complaint must: rest on the same general set of facts as the general complaint, refer to the same accident and same injuries as the original complaint, and refer to the same instrumentality as the original complaint.  [Citation.]”  (Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 590, 597-598.) 

“A complaint must contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language.  (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1).)  This requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that, taken as a whole, apprise the defendant of the factual basis of the claim.  [Citation.]  The requirement that the complaint allege ultimate facts forming the basis for the plaintiff’s cause of action is central to the relation-back doctrine and the determination of whether an amended complaint should be deemed filed as of the date of the original pleading.  [Citation.]”  (Id. at p. 598.)   

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)  Defendant’s counsel has satisfied this requirement.  (Declaration of Brad M. Elder, ¶¶ 6-8.)   

Plaintiff argues the Stipulation foreclosed Defendant’s right to file a demurrer.  This argument has no merit.  According to the Stipulation, Defendant agreed to allow Plaintiff to file the FAC and to accept service of the FAC and the First Amended Summons.  (Reply, Elder Decl., Ex. A.)  Defendant had 30 days to file a responsive pleading to the FAC.  (Id.)  At no point did Defendant waive his right to demur to the FAC.  Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument and considers the merits of Defendant’s demurrer. 

Defendant’s principal argument is that the FAC is time-barred because it does not relate back to the original complaint.   

The relation-back doctrine requires the Court to compare the factual allegations in the original and amended complaints.  (See Scholes, supra, at p. 598.)  In the original complaint, Plaintiff states her name and indicates she is a resident of Seattle, Washington.  Plaintiff checks the complaint type boxes for “motor vehicle,” “property damage,” and “personal injury.”  In the caption space for “Defendant,” Plaintiff writes “William Robert Wright (Driver) & John Doe (Vehicle Owner).”  In the section for “Jurisdiction,” Plaintiff indicates that the action is an unlimited civil case (exceeds $25,000).  In Item 2, Plaintiff indicates that the pleading consists of 5 pages with cover letter; only 3 pages are included (which suggests Plaintiff intended to add pages to the form complaint.). Item 6 identifies Doe defendants as vehicle owner.  Item 8 identifies that the injury occurred in this jurisdictional area. In Item 10 of the form complaint, Plaintiff indicates the cause of action is for “Motor Vehicle” and the statements preceding Item 10 apply to that cause of action.  However, as noted by Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, Plaintiff does not attach any other forms to the complaint.  In item 11, Plaintiff checks the boxes that identify the injuries suffered. In Item 14, Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for compensatory damages according to proof.  (See Complaint.)  When liberally construed, the sum of these facts indicates that Defendant (who is identified in the Complaint) was the driver of a motor vehicle that was owned by an unknown person, and which caused Plaintiff property damage and personal injury in an amount exceeding $25,000.  These facts are sparse, but certainly sufficient to put Defendant on notice of the factual basis of the claim.  

Plaintiff’s FAC states two causes of action.  The first cause of action is “Motor Vehicle.”  Under the first cause of action, Plaintiff alleges “the acts of defendants were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to plaintiff; the acts occurred on July 30, 2019 at or near the intersection of Melrose Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard.”  The second cause of action is “Negligence.”  Plaintiff alleges “Defendants breached their duty of care to Plaintiff when Defendants negligently permitted, entrusted, managed, controlled, and operated Defendants’ vehicle so as to cause the collision and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.”  These facts indicate that Defendant negligently operated a motor vehicle that caused a collision with Plaintiff on July 30, 2019 at a location in Los Angeles County.