Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 22STCV13883, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13883    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51 

Date: 3/16/23

Case #22STCV13883

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Motion filed: 1/6/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Gregory John Hughson; H20 Water Systems & Plumbing; and Vortex Water Systems & Plumbing, Inc.(collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Martha Tolbert (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff without leave to amend.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

This is a property damage action stemming from a fire that occurred in Plaintiff’s home on 10/17/18. (Compl. p. 4.) On 4/26/22, Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants, alleging a sole cause of action for General Negligence. On 7/13/22, Defendants filed their answer. On 1/6/23, Defendants filed and served the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

Meet-and-Confer 

Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party that filed the pleading subject to the motion to determine whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party must meet and confer again with the party that filed the amended pleading before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the amended pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 439, subd. (a).)

Defendants’ counsel declares that on 9/1/22 and 9/7/22, he met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel via email regarding the issues raised in the instant motion, without coming to a resolution. (Decl. of Gregory Dilts, ¶¶ 4.) Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants’ counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a). 

Legal Standard 

A motion for judgment on the pleadings made by a defendant may be based on the following grounds: (1) the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or (2) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B).)

Here, Defendants move for a judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s entire complaint because it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Statute of Limitations

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made on the ground that the cause of action alleged is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (Ponderosa Homes v City of San Ramon (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1768–1769.) Here, “an action for taking, detaining, or injuring goods or chattels, including an action for the specific recovery of personal property” must be commenced within three years of the date of the alleged injury. (Code Civ. Proc. § 338, subd. (c)(1).) “Notwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Emergency Rule 9, subd. (a).)

Here, as Defendants observe, the alleged injury to Plaintiff occurred on 10/17/18. (Compl. p. 4.) Therefore, under Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (c)(1), Plaintiff was required to commence this action on or before 10/17/21. With the addition of the emergency 180-day emergency tolling period, Plaintiff was required to commence this action on or before 4/15/22. Plaintiff filed her complaint on 4/26/22, and therefore her action is barred by the statute of limitations, even when tolled.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not opposed the instant motion. Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.