Judge Steven J. Kleifield, Case 19STCV26194 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven J. Kleifield, Case: 19STCV26194, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 19STCV26194 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: 57

JORDAN DOWNS IA, LP v. SVA ARCHITECTS, INC., 19STCV26194

TENTATIVE RULING ON ERNESTO VASQUEZ'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DOE AMENDMENT

The Court's tentative ruling is to grant Ernesto Vasquez's motion to quash service of Plaintiff Jordan Downs IA, LP's ("Jordan Downs") Doe Amendment that sought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474 to add Vasquez as an identified, named Defendant in this litigation over a construction project in the Watts section of Los Angeles. In the Court's view, the motion can be granted on the following two alternative grounds.

First, Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.210 provides that "[t]he summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant. Jordan Downs filed its complaint on July 26, 2019. In addition to naming SVA Architects as a Defendant, the complaint named 50 "Doe Defendants" On January 24, 2023, Jordan Downs filed an amendment to its complaint, identifying Vasquez as Doe 2 in the initial complaint. Jordan Downs's amendment was untimely under Section 583.210. Any amendment to add Vasquez as a named Defendant in place of a Doe Defendant had to have been filed by July 26, 2022, which was three years from when Jordan Downs filed its complaint. That date has come and gone.

The Court rejects Jordan Downs's argument that the time for filing its Doe Amendment to add Vasquez was extended by six months through the California Judicial Council's Emergency Rule 9, which was promulgated in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. By its terms, Emergency Rule 9 extended the statute of limitations for initiating an action. (People v. Financial and Casualty Surety, Inc. (2021) 73 Cal.App.5^th 33, 41.) It did not extend the time for service of the summons and complaint after the action was initiated. Jordan Downs’s citation to precedent applying the “relation back doctrine” for purposes of both statutes of limitations and the three-year time limit for service of a summons and complaint is misplaced. That doctrine has no bearing on the scope of Emergency Rule 9.

Equally unavailing is Jordan Downs's argument that the time for filing its Doe Amendment to add Vasquez was extended by virtue of Section 583.240(b). That provision applies when "[t]he prosecution of the action or proceedings in the action was stayed and the stay affected service." There was no such stay here. What Jordan Downs refers to in its invocation of Section 583.240 is a case management order. But that order did not effectuate a stay. It merely set discovery guidelines and timetables.

Second, in order for a plaintiff to be able to amend a complaint under Section 474 to add a previously identified Doe Defendant as a Defendant by that person or entity's true name, the plaintiff must have been ignorant both of the Defendant's actual identity and the facts giving rise to a claim against the Defendant at the time the complaint initially was filed. (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. California Coastal Comm'n (2019) 40 Cal.App.5^th 563, 579.) Here, Jordan Downs concedes that it was aware of Vasquez's identity when it filed the initial complaint on July 26, 2019. Jordan Downs contends, however, that it was unaware of facts giving rise to a claim against Vasquez until he submitted a declaration in support of SVA Architect's summary judgment motion in December 2022. Specifically, Jordan Downs says it knew that Vasquez was the CEO of SVA Architects but that it did not know that Vasquez also had acted in his capacity as an architect on the drawing, plans, and construction administration for the project in Watts from which Jordan Downs’s lawsuit stems.

This contention is belied by the fact that Vasquez’s stamp appears on the architectural plans for the project. The stamp identifies Vasquez as the licensed architect who was responsible for the plans. (Business and Professions Code, Section 5536.1(a).) Jordan Downs had the plans in its possession before filing suit on July 26, 2019 alleging that that the plans were defective. It thus was aware of Vasquez’s role and the facts on which its claim against him is premised. Under these circumstances, Jordan Downs’s attempt to bring Vasquez into the case as a Defendant through the auspices of a Section 474 Doe amendment fails. That Jordan Downs asserts it did not know of the full extent of Vasquez’s involvement in the project until reviewing his December 2022 declaration is neither here nor there for purposes of Section 474. What matters is that Jordan Downs knew as of the time the complaint was filed in July 2019 that Vasquez was responsible for the plans that Jordan Downs claimed were defective.