Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV04645, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04645    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Prince Nortey (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, Defendants) based on injuries Plaintiff purportedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision.  Defendants demur to the entire complaint as time-barred.  Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.  Defendants reply.

Preliminarily, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to comply with the meet and confer requirement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 439, subdivision (a).  “Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).)  However, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).) 

The Court however finds Defendants’ counsel’s declaration detailing her attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff is sufficient to comply with the meet and confer requirement.  (Declaration of Jennifer J. Griffin, ¶¶ 2-3.)

JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Under Evidence Code section 452, “[j]udicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451: . . . (d) Record of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States . . . (h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capably of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d), (h).)

Here, the Court grants Defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1-10 pursuant to Evidence Code section 452.

ANALYSIS

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)  A demurrer lies where the dates alleged in the complaint show the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.  (Saliter v. Pierce Bros. Mortuaries (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 292, 300.)  The running of the statute must appear “clearly and affirmatively” from the face of the complaint. (Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4h 32, 42.) 

The statute of limitations on causes of action for personal injuries is two years.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.)  Such causes of action accrue upon the occurrence of the last act necessary to complete the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 312 [“Civil actions, without exception, can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this title, after the cause of action shall have accrued, unless where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute”]; see generally Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-809 [“Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at “the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements”].)  For example, “The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are (a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 834 [cleaned up].) 

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a cause of action for general negligence based on a single incident which occurred on February 14, 2019.  (Complaint, ¶ 9.)  Defendants argue Plaintiff’s complaint is time-barred.  Yet, the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s personal injury claim lapsed on February 14, 2021 and Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 5, 2021.  Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint, on its face, is timely. [1]

Notwithstanding, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s complaint is instead time-barred based on the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice on August 5, 2022, and the Court’s subsequent grant of relief to Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to set aside said dismissal on January 30, 2023.  Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s right to pursue his claim against Defendants was terminated when his complaint was dismissed on August 5, 2022.  Further, when Plaintiff moved to set aside the dismissal on November 28, 2022, Plaintiff could no longer rely on the original filing date to avoid the expiration of the statute of limitations, and thus his claim was time-barred. 

The Court finds however that Defendants misapply the law.  Section 473 relief is not available to a plaintiff who had their personal injury action dismissed for failure to comply with the statute of limitations.  (Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Protection Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 927, 930.)  Here, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed based on Plaintiff counsel’s failure to appear at trial on August 5, 2022, not for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations.  (See Minute Order of August 5, 2022.)  As was discussed above, Plaintiff filed his complaint well within the statutory period. 

                Defendants further argue that the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint was improperly set aside on August 5, 2022, because Plaintiff was not entitled to either mandatory or discretionary relief under section 473.  The Court however finds these arguments do not constitute grounds for demurrer.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10 [enumerating grounds for demurrer].)   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint and orders Defendants to file and serve an answer to the complaint on or before June 7, 2023. 

            The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.