Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV27194, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27194    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: 30

MARICELA LEMUS vs JOSE PONCE

Motion to Quash Doe Amendment

Ruling:  PRI’s motion to quash is DENIED.  Moving party to give notice. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Discussion: 

The Court sustains the objection to Exhibit One of the Opposition, due to hearsay, lack of foundation, and no authentication.  

Code Civ. Proc., section 474 allows a named defendant to be substituted for a fictitious defendant if, at the time of filing the complaint, the plaintiff was genuinely unaware of the named defendant’s identity or of facts giving rise to a cause of action against the named defendant who was otherwise known to the plaintiff. (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v California Coastal Com. (2019) 40 CA5th 563, 579.) The plaintiff’s lack of knowledge must be real and not feigned, but whether the plaintiff’s ignorance was due to misinformation or negligence is irrelevant. (Balon v Drost (1993) 20 CA4th 483, 488, 25 CR2d 12.)  Here, Plaintiff specifically alleged defendant in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

Plaintiff argues that she knew the name, but not the culpability. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff's opposition is devoid of any admissible facts that support Plaintiff's contention, i.e., no declarations under penalty of perjury were filed. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint which provides that "Each defendant named about is a natural person except Ponce Recycling Inc., a corporation" is the only fact bearing upon the issue. The plain inference to be drawn is that Plaintiff knew that PRI (Ponce Recycling Incorporated) was or should have been a defendant in the action. Given the admissible evidence before the Court, the Court grants the motion to quash.