Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV09398, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09398    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 55

FATEMI v.    ATLANTIC CASUALTY INS. CO.   20STCV09398

Hearing Date:  1/19/23,  Dept. 55

#add-on:   DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Defendants JOHN LUNA and JASON LUNA.

RP:  Petitioners DREAM MOTOR CARS, INC., AMIR FATEMI and FATEMI GHAZALEH; Respondent ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

Summary

On 3/9/20, petitioners filed a Petition.

On 6/20/22, petitioners filed a First Amended Petition, requesting declaratory relief regarding insurance benefits, after petitioners allegedly sustained property damage and personal injury in a multi-vehicle accident in August 2019, involving a car owned or driven by the Lunas respondents, added as DOE amendments on 8/16/21, after the petitioners' depositions were taken.

MP Positions

Moving parties request an order sustaining the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, on grounds including the following:

·         The First Amended Complaint is subject to demurrer because the negligence claim was filed against John Luna and Jason Luna beyond the applicable statute of limitations.

·         The relation back doctrine does not apply, because supportive DOE allegations in the original Complaint were missing.

·         If the Complaint alleges a cause of action against the Luna Defendants, then the relation back doctrine does not apply because Plaintiffs were not truly ignorant of the facts giving rise to the Luna Defendants’ involvement in the case.

·         If the Plaintiffs fail to meet the requirements of both including charging allegations against Doe defendants and that Plaintiffs were truly ignorant of the Defendants’ identity, then relation back is inapplicable, even if there is no prejudice to the Defendants.

RP Positions

Opposing parties advocate overruling, for reasons including the following:

·         No statute of limitations ran.

·         Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on March 9, 2020 as a result of a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on August 23, 2019.

·         Plaintiffs filed Doe Amendments on August 16, 2021, prior to the statute of limitations deadline, such that there is relation back to the date of the original Petition. 

·         This paragraph in the Complaint is sufficient as to DOE defendants including Defendant driver Jason Luna and owner John Luna:  “Fred Joe Scholder of Aries Prepared Beef Company, was driving a metallic gray Mercedez-Benz ... Mr. Scholder proceeded through the stop sign on Havenhurst without stopping at Bosque. In doing so, he collided with a white VW in front of MS. FATEMI, driven by third-party Jason Luna. This impact put the VW into a spin, causing it to collide with [FATEMI's vehicle]. MS. FATEMI suffered bodily injuries and damages.”

·         This was the part of the rationale offered in support of granting Plaintiffs’ motion for leave amend on May 19, 2022.

·         On December 15, 2022, a similar motion was brought by Defendants Fred Scholder and Aries Prepared Meat company, which was denied.

Tentative Ruling

The demurrer is overruled.

Twenty days to answer.

Although the initially sued DOE defendants included in the caption of the original Complaint lacked fully supportive allegations in the body, there was at least a description or inference of their involvement in the subject car accident, which was more than no attempt to charge fictitious defendants.

The filing of a valid DOE amendment means that the amendment relates back to the time of the original complaint’s filing, unless there was no attempt, or not a sufficient enough attempt, in the complaint, to charge the fictitious defendants with responsibility for plaintiffs' injuries.  Winding Creek v. McGlashan (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 933, 942. Hence, demurrer-proof DOE allegations in the Complaint are not required to get relation back.

The filing of a valid DOE amendment means that the amendment relates back to the time of the original Complaint’s filing, for purposes of analyzing the Statute of Limitations. Woo v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 169, 176.  

Further, the initial Petition did not fully show earlier knowledge that demurring defendants caused the collision, in alleging only one demurring Defendant as being a third-party, not a named Defendant (Petition, 3:2-10). 

An intervening act makes proving causation more complicated. “The proper classification of an intervening act as a concurrent cause or as a superseding cause presents a question of fact, which sometimes may be resolved on motion for summary judgment, but less often can be resolved on demurrer.”  Bigbee v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 451, 456  (“We think  the allegations of the second amended complaint are sufficient to pass the test of general demurrer.”)