Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV08999, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08999    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff Abraham Labbad, guardian ad litem for V.C.L., filed his original complaint, which named 50 Doe defendants. On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice identifying Defendant Downtown Burbank Partnership Inc. (“Downtown Burbank”) as “Doe 4.” However, Plaintiff did not serve Downtown Burbank with the summons until March 28, 2025. Downtown Burbank now moves the Court to dismiss this action for failure to effect service within three years of the original complaint.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210(a), a plaintiff must serve the summons and complaint on a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against that defendant. An action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed. Failure to comply mandates dismissal under section 583.250(a), unless an exception applies. This three-year deadline applies equally to defendants who are initially sued as Doe defendants and later substituted by amendment. In Lesko v. Superior Court (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 476, the Court of Appeal held that the three-year period began running from the filing of the original complaint, even though the defendant was originally named as a Doe. The Court rejected the argument that the period restarted upon amendment, explaining that “the amendment alleged the same operative facts and substituted the name of petitioner for a previously named Doe defendant.” (Id. at p. 482.) Accordingly, the mandatory dismissal provision applied where service was not completed within three years of the original filing date. (Id. at pp. 480–485.) 

Discussion

The Court grants Defendant Downtown Burbank’s request for judicial notice under Evidence Code sections 451, 452, and 453.

The relevant timeline is as follows: On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed the original complaint. Defendant Downtown Burbank was not named in the original complaint. In 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint naming Downtown Burbank as a defendant. The summons and complaint were served on Defendant on March 28, 2025, through personal service. (RJN, Ex. 5.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant was served with the summons and complaint on March 28, 2025.  He argues, however,  that Defendant Downtown Burbank became a party to the action in August 2024, and was served in March 2025; therefore, Plaintiff contends the three-year period for service has not yet expired. Essentially, Plaintiff contends that the three-year period under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210 should run from the filing of the First Amended Complaint rather than the original complaint.

Plaintiff’s argument was squarely rejected by Lesko, supra. In Lesko, the court held that even if an amended complaint is filed, the three-year period for service runs from the date the original complaint was filed, not from the amended complaint.

Here, both the original and First Amended Complaints were filed by Abraham Labbad on behalf of V.C.L., a minor. Both pleadings allege that V.C.L. was injured in an ice-skating accident on January 4, 2020, in Downtown Burbank. Both allege that she was unsupervised, allowed onto the rink, suffered a severe ankle injury, required surgery, and experienced emotional distress and prolonged recovery. Because the amended complaint asserts the same operative facts as the original, the service period is measured from the date the original complaint was filed, March 8, 2021. (Lesko, supra, at p. 478.)

Plaintiff also appears to argue that service was timely because the First Amended Complaint was served on Defendant within 180 days of its filing. It is unclear what basis Plaintiff is relying on for the argument that service within 180 days overrides the requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210(a) to serve the summons and complaint within three years of the original complaint.

Furthermore, Plaintiff states that the failure to serve within three years was the result of inadvertence but provides no explanation or supporting facts. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.250(b), the service requirements are mandatory and are not subject to extension or excuse except as expressly provided by statute. The statutory exceptions are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.240, and Plaintiff has not shown how any of those exceptions apply.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.