Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: BC643011, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC643011    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: SEC

SIMETA v. ALBERTA DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:  BC643011

HEARING:  9/6/22 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendant Crew, Inc.’s motion to quash service of summons and, alternatively, motion to dismiss for failure to serve Cross-Complainant, Alberta Tierra Luna Management, LLC’s second amended cross-complaint within three years is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Cross-Defendant Crew, Inc. moves to quash service of summons and, alternatively, motion to dismiss for failure to serve Cross-Complainant, Alberta Tierra Luna Management, LLC’s second amended cross-complaint within three years pursuant to CCP §§ 418.10 and 583.210.

"(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:  "(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her."  (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).)

CCP § 583.210 states that “[t]he summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant.”  (Id.)  A recognized exception to the general rule is the substitution under section 474 of a new defendant for a fictitious Doe defendant named in the original complaint as to whom a cause of action was stated in the original complaint. If the requirements of section 474 are satisfied, the amended complaint substituting a new defendant for a fictitious Doe defendant filed after the statute of limitations has expired is deemed filed as of the date the original complaint was filed.” (Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 176.) “Among the requirements for application of the section 474 relation back doctrine is that the new defendant in an amended complaint be substituted for an existing fictitious Doe defendant named in the original complaint.” (Id.)

Here, Alberta Tierra Luna Management, LLC sought leave to name Crew as a newly named defendant—not to substitute in as an existing Doe defendant. CCP § 583.210 and the relation back doctrine do not apply.

The Motion is DENIED.