Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV02153, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02153    Hearing Date: June 4, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

BERTHA RECINOS, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

BLANCA GISELLE WUGH, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 23STCV02153 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

June 4, 2024 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On February 1, 2023, plaintiff Bertha Recinos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Blanca Giselle Wugh (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 100 for injuries arising from a motor vehicle incident which occurred on August 3, 2020. (Compl. p. 4.) 

Defendant now demurs to Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that it is time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations of CCP § 335.1, and that the tolling period provision of Emergency Rule 9(a) does not extend the time period in which Plaintiff was to file her action. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Emergency Rule 9 extended the filing date and added extra time.  

As of May 28, 2024, no reply has been received.  

 

II. DEMURRER 

  1. Procedural Requirement 

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a).)   

The Court finds Defendant fulfilled this requirement prior to filing its demurrer. (Baharvar. Decl. 3-4). 

 

  1. Legal Standard 

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings.  It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading (complaint, answer, or cross-complaint).  (CCP §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)   

 

  1. Discussion 

The parties dispute the interpretation of Emergency Rule 9, Subdivision (a) amended effective May 29, 2020. For limitation periods lasting longer than 180 days, the statute of limitations was tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020. (Cal. Rules of Court, appen. I, emergency rule 9(a).) The Supreme Court has defined “tolling” as follows: 

“To ‘toll’ has been defined most pertinently as ‘to stop the running of; abate <toll the limitations period>.’ (Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. 1525.) When it comes to the tolling of a statute of limitations, we have stated: ‘Tolling may be analogized to a clock that is stopped and then restarted. Whatever period of time that remained when the clock is stopped is available when the clock is restarted, that is, when the tolling period has ended.’ (Woods v. Young (1991) 53 Cal.3d 315, 326, fn. 3.)” 

(Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 48 Cal.4th 665, 674.) 

Here, Plaintiff’s injury occurred on August 3, 2020, within the tolling period of April 6, 2020 to October 1, 2020. In other words, the clock for Plaintiff’s period of time did not begin to tick until the end of the tolling period, which is October 1, 2020. Plaintiff’s action is subject to the two-year statute of limitations of CCP § 335.1. Thus, Plaintiff had until October 1, 2022 to file her action against Defendant. Plaintiff did not file her action until February 1, 2023. On its face, Plaintiff’s action is time-barred.  

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.  

 

 Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • The Court is not available to hear oral argument on this date.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative and want oral argument, the hearing will have to be continued, and the parties must work with the clerk to find an available date for the continuance. 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 3rd day of June 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court