Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 19STCV42747, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV42747    Hearing Date: November 26, 2024    Dept: 48

 

                                                                                                  

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ASHLEY S. AARONS, individually, and as Trustee of the Ashley S. Aarons 2015 Trust Dated May 15, 2015,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

ALLIANCE PORTFOLIO PRIVATE EQUITY FINANCE, INC., et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 19STCV42747

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION

 

Dept. 48

8:30 a.m.

November 26, 2024

 

On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff Ashley S. Aarons (individually and as Trustee of the Ashley S. Aarons 2015 Trust Dated May 15, 2015) filed this action.

On December 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) that included Defendant Maria Cecilia S. Doratan for the first time.[1]

On October 10, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve her within three years of the action being filed.

The summons and complaint must be served on a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.210, subd. (a).  An action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed.  (Ibid.)  If service is not made within the required time period, the action shall not be further prosecuted and shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.250, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was deeded the subject property on January 28, 2020, and Plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of possession sometime after.  (FAC ¶¶ 205, 303.)  Therefore, Defendant could not have been named as a defendant in the original December 2, 2019 complaint because the underlying events for the new cause of action for wrongful eviction had not yet occurred.  “[W]here the amended complaint is based on different operative facts, the defendant does not become a party until the date of filing the amendment.”  (Barrington v. A. H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 146, 154.)

Additionally, for all causes of action, Defendant is alleged to be an alter ego of the other defendants.  “When a defendant is first named in an amended complaint, and is alleged to be the alter ego of a defendant named in the original complaint, he is brought into the action as a new defendant and the action is commenced as to him at the time the amended complaint naming him is filed.”  (Hennessey’s Tavern, Inc. v. American Air Filter Co. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1359.)

Plaintiff filed a proof of service reflecting substituted service of the summons and FAC on Defendant on June 21, 2023.  This service was within three years of Plaintiff’s December 20, 2021 FAC, when this action was commenced against this Defendant.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

 

         Dated this 26th day of November 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 


[1] Plaintiff identified Defendant only in the body of the FAC and did not follow the correct procedures for adding a defendant.  (FAC ¶ 8; see Code Civ. Proc., § 422.40; California Rules of Court, rule 2.111(4).)