Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV09752, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09752    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On March 21, 2022, plaintiff Helen Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Soudaram Chandrashekar (“Defendant”) arising from an automobile incident that occurred on September 19, 2018.  (Compl., MV-1.)  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. 

          On July 7, 2022, Defendant filed this demurrer arguing that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the statute of limitations.  At the hearing on August 4, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to the present date to allow Plaintiff time to find representation.  On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter stating that she has been unable to find representation and requests another continuance. 

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.  [Citation.]”  (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)  Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) 

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Ibid.)

III.     DISCUSSION

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a).)  

Mark P. Lascola declares that he sent a detailed email on June 7, 2022.  (Declaration of Mark P. Lascola, ¶ 5.)  The email identified Defendant’s concerns with the Complaint, specifically the issue of the statute of limitations.  (Ibid.)  The email requested that Plaintiff contact defense counsel for further discussion.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff did not receive any response to defense counsel’s correspondence.  (Lascola Decl., ¶ 6.) 

Plaintiff alleges she suffered wage loss, loss of use of property, general damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity and prays for damages in the amount of $300,000.  Plaintiff does not allege she sustained personal injuries or medical expenses.  Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “recklessly drove her car into [her] office, and caused [her] business to shut down.”  (Compl., GN-1.)  Plaintiff further alleges that she has to lease a new office and that several of her workers quit as a result of Defendant’s negligent driving.  (Ibid.) 

Defendant contends that the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s action is, at most, 3 years long.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 338.)  Defendant further argues in a footnote that Emergency Rule 9 does not save Plaintiff’s action. 

The Court agrees that even though the statute of limitations was tolled between April 6, 2020, and October 1, 2020, this action is untimely [3 years = 1095, plus additional 179 days].  The Court also agrees that no amendment is possible to state a viable claim.  Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained and no leave to amend shall be granted.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend.   Defendant is dismissed from this action. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.