Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02672, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV02672 Hearing Date: June 29, 2023 Dept: R
The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
This case arises from an auto accident. Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by defendant’s negligent act. (Since the time the complaint was filed, one of the plaintiffs has passed away. Plaintiff Feldman claims he will be or is the legal representative. The court will take that at face value for purposes of this motion.) Defendant demurs based on the statute of limitations.
The accident occurred on December 13, 2019. The complaint was filed on December 12, 2022. Defendant asserts that the applicable statute of limitations is two years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. Even giving full effect to Emergency Rule 9, this action was filed too late to meet that statute.
Plaintiffs raise a series of procedural challenges. One is that there is a defect in the notice of motion. The court disagrees. While the notice of motion names the wrong declarant, the declaration is immaterial anyway. The only purpose of the declaration is to establish that there was a meet and confer. It does not otherwise set forth any facts upon which the demurrer is based (nor could it, given that this is a pleading motion). Plaintiffs also contend that they are self-represented and therefore should be given latitude. The court cannot do so. The statute of limitations is what it is. The court cannot extend it because plaintiffs lack counsel. The court certainly understands that there are things where it might relax certain requirements because a party is self-represented. For example, if the form of the pleading fails to conform to the Rules of Court, the court would likely not be overly harsh, at least if there were some effort to comply. There are even quasi-substantive issues where the court can be more forgiving for a self-represented litigant. But if the statute of limitations has passed, it has passed. Plaintiffs argue that there is additional time given by virtue of the pandemic. But that 6 month period does not change the analysis because the complaint was not filed within six months of the statute’s normal expiration. While it is true that people were urged to stay home during much of 2020, that does not and did not bar plaintiffs from filing the complaint during the statutory period.
Plaintiffs also contend that they were justified in their delay. There might well be grounds to toll the statute of limitations, but none are pled. The court cannot consider any of those grounds in the form of an opposition brief. The court will grant leave to amend to allow plaintiffs to plead a viable ground to toll the statute, but the ground must be one that the court can recognize at law or in equity. The court has its doubts that any such grounds exist, but the court will allow plaintiffs to try.
Plaintiffs seem to argue that one of them—Raisa Feldman (now deceased)—lacked the mental capacity to bring the action and therefore the time to do so was tolled pursuant to section 352. It is not clear to the court that such is the case, but plaintiffs may attempt to develop the argument further in their amended complaint.
Plaintiffs also assume that the statute of limitations is three years, not two. The court disagrees. But if plaintiffs, in opposition to a new demurrer, wants to so argue, the court will not bar the argument. It is just that the two year statute appears to be more on point. It could be that plaintiffs seek only property damage, but that is far from clear from the complaint (and were that the case, only the car’s owner could sue).
In any case, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs will have 30 days.
Plaintiffs are cautioned that a non-lawyer cannot represent anyone else. While there may be an exception where the person has legal standing—such as a recognized successor-in-interest—it does not extend to all of the plaintiffs here. Purporting to represent someone else is a violation of law. In future pleadings, plaintiffs will need to abide by that rule.