Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: BC689552, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC689552    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 21, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Dismiss

Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant George Nahas

Responding Party: Plaintiff Gabriel Mauries

T/R:     NAHAS’ MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.

            NAHAS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On January 11, 2018, Plaintiff sued Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) assault; (2) battery; (3) negligent supervision; (4) negligent hiring; (5) negligence; (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges he was attacked outside of Lure Nightclub by the club’s employee, Defendant Enrique Guijosa.

ANALYSIS

Specially Appearing Defendant George Nahas moves to strike the Doe amendment adding Nahas to this action on the grounds that Plaintiff failed serve him within three years under CCP § 583.210(a).

CCP § 583.210(a) provides, “[t]he summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant. For the purpose of this subdivision, an action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed.” Courts have held that this section applies to Doe amendments. (Higgins v. Superior Ct. (2017) 15 Cal. App. 5th 973, 982 [“Thus, even where the filing of an amended complaint on a Doe defendant relates back to the filing of an original complaint, the plaintiff must nonetheless identify and serve a Doe defendant with a summons and complaint within three years of the commencement of the action.”])

Plaintiff filed the complaint on January 11, 2018 and served Nahas more than 4 years later on September 18, 2022. Plaintiff asserts that Nahas is a co-owner of 1430 Cahuenga Partners, LP, Sunset Entertainment Group, LLC. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ counsel was obstructive at Defendants’ depositions, and Plaintiff could not have known that Gahas was a co-owner until Defendant’s deposition.

CCP § 583.240(d) states that, “[i]n computing the time within which service must be made pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: Service, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile due to causes beyond the plaintiff’s control.” The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that service was impossible for reasons outside of Plaintiff’s control for four years.

Plaintiff failed to serve Nahas within three years of filing the complaint. Nahas’ motion is GRANTED.