Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC05158, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC05158    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 25

Tentative Ruling

Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong

Department 25

Confidential – Court-Privileged Document

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Case Name:                             MARIA DE LA LUZ RIESTRA; HECTOR CHAVEZ CRUZ. v. CIRINO MELERO; JOAQUIN MELERO and DOES 1 to 20, Inclusive

Case No.:                                23STLC05158

Motion:                                   Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Moving Party:                         Defendants Cirino Melero and Joaquin Melero

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Recommended Ruling:           Defendants Cirino Melero and Joaquin Melero’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of January 30, 2024                  [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed late as of February 05, 2024         [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

A. Factual

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Riestra and Cruz were the driver and passenger, respectively, of a vehicle traveling northbound on Van Nuys Blvd on August 14, 2021. Defendant Joaquin was traveling in the exact directions as the Plaintiffs. When Plaintiff Riestra slowed down to stop for a red light, Plaintiffs allege that they were rear-ended by Defendants’ vehicle. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants were inattentive to the road conditions and negligently driving at an unsafe speed due to traffic conditions. Defendant’s driving at an unsafe speed violated California Vehicle Code Section 22350. As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs allege they have injuries, all of which have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs physical pain and suffering. Plaintiffs further allege that Plaintiff’s injuries and property damage are the direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, recklessness, carelessness, and unlawful act.

B. Procedural

On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed two causes of action against Defendant for the following: 1) Motor Vehicle, and 2) General Negligence.

On January 17, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendants pray for the Court to sustain their demurrer and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint because Plaintiffs are time-barred under the statute of limitations. Defendants argue that under CCP § 335.1, Plaintiffs had two years from the date the accident occurred on August 14, 2021, to file an action against the Defendants. Defendants note that the action was filed on August 15, 2023, more than two years after the alleged accident, and thus would be time-barred under CCP 335.1. Therefore, since the action is time-barred, Defendants argue that their demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be sustained without leave to amend.

OPPOSITION

No opposition was filed. 

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.  

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

 “The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, 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 plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 128.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

II.        Discussion

Plaintiffs state the following causes of action in its complaint against Defendants: 1) General Negligence, and 2) Motor Vehicle.

            A. Meet and Confer Requirement

The demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a).)

Here, Defendants provide the Court with a declaration from their counsel, who states that on December 20, 2023, she wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel asking why the Complaint was not barred under the statute of limitations. (Carla M. Barcelos-Pettit Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. B.) Still, as of drafting the instant demurrer, she did not receive a response from Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id.) Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have satisfied the meet and confer requirement under CCP § 430.41(a).

The Court now moves to the merits of the demurrer.

B. First and Second Cause of Action – General Negligence and Motor Vehicle.

First, the Court notes that the causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence are essentially the same since both involve duty, breach, and proximate causation. Thus, the Court will analyze the complaint under one claim for negligence.

To state a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that on August 14, 2021, Plaintiffs Riestra and Cruz were the driver and passenger, respectively, of a vehicle traveling northbound in Van Nuys Blvd. (Compl. p. 4.) Defendant Joaquin was traveling in the same direction as the Plaintiffs. (Id.) When Plaintiffs slowed down to stop for a red light, Plaintiffs allege that they were rear-ended by Defendants’ vehicle. (Id.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendants were inattentive to the road conditions and negligently driving at an unsafe speed due to traffic conditions. (Id.) Defendants’ driving at an unsafe speed violated California Vehicle Code Section 22350. (Id.) As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs allege they have injuries, all of which have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff physical pain and suffering. (Id.) Plaintiffs further allege that Plaintiff’s injuries and property damage are the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligent, reckless, careless, and unlawful act. (Id.)  

Defendants argue that under CCP § 335.1, Plaintiffs had two years from the date the accident occurred on August 14, 2021, to file an action against the Defendants. Defendants note that the action was filed on August 15, 2023, more than two years after the alleged accident, and thus would be time-barred under CCP 335.1.

Here, the Complaint arises from an alleged accident that occurred on August 14, 2021, and alleges two causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence causing personal injury to Plaintiff and their property. (Compl., p. 4, 5.) Thus, the applicable statute of limitations is two years under CCP 335.1. Plaintiffs action falls outside the statute of limitations because it was filed on August 15, 2023, just one day over the statute of limitations.

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have not filed a defense to the demurrer that provides a basis for why the Complaint is not barred under the statute of limitation or provides an exception for why CCP § 335.1 would not apply in this case. Additionally, the Court does not find a reasonable possibility of a successful amendment that would bring a successful amendment of the Complaint.

Thus, because Plaintiffs’ action to recover damages for personal injury has a two-year statute of limitations, and because this Complaint was filed over two years after the accident, the Court finds that the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ causes of action. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Demurrer without leave to amend.

III.       Conclusion

            Defendants Cirino Melero and Joaquin Melero’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.