Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00021667-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00021667-CU-WM-CTL WILLIAMS VS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Respondent Director of Department of Motor Vehicles ('DMV')'s demurrer is SUSTAINED.

Respondent's request for judicial notice is granted.

Equitable Tolling The court continued this matter to give Petitioner an opportunity to submit evidence related to a potential equitable tolling argument. The court notes that although it received a copy of this briefing from Petitioner, it appears Petitioner failed to serve copies on Respondent. (ROA #31.) The court has reviewed and considered Petitioner's submission and is not persuaded that equitable tolling applies.

Nothing in the documents provided by Petitioner suggests he was misled or induced by anyone at the DMV to refrain from pursuing an administrative appeal or timely file a superior court action.

At best, it appears Petitioner was under the mistaken belief that if he succeeded in combatting the related DUI charges, he could reopen the DMV administrative proceedings and reverse his license suspension. However, Petitioner's suspension was founded on a hearing conducted pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13353, which requires only a showing that the allegedly intoxicated driver refused to submit to a chemical test upon arrest after the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving under the influence, and the driver was warned that refusal to submit to the test would result in license revocation or suspension. (Veh. Code, § 13353, subd. (d).) As such, the proceedings related to the DUI charge against Petitioner were irrelevant to the DMV's decision to suspend his license.

Demurrer A demurrer shall be sustained if the pleading 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Here, Respondent demurs to the entire verified petition on the grounds that Petitioner's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court agrees. Petitioner's sole claim is for review of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039629  26 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WILLIAMS VS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR  37-2023-00021667-CU-WM-CTL the DMV's August 6, 2020 decision to revoke Petitioner's driver's license after a hearing that occurred on July 20, 2020. At best, Petitioner had 94 days from the date notice of the decision was sent on August 7, 2020 to petition for judicial review of the decision. (Veh. Code, §§ 14401, 14105.4.) Instead, Petitioner waited over two years to seek judicial review, well outside the applicable statute of limitations period.

Accordingly, Respondent's demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

Respondent is instructed to submit a proposed judgment for the court's signature.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039629  26