Case Name: Smith v. Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-254808

This is an action for injuries sustained in a car accident. According to the form complaint, on September 6, 2011, defendant James Little (“Little”) hit plaintiff Sue Smith (“Plaintiff”) while employed by defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“Church”). (See complaint, ¶¶ MV-1, MV-2.) Plaintiff filed her complaint for motor vehicle negligence on October 18, 2013.

Defendants Church and Little (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to the complaint on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations. In opposition, Plaintiff, in pro per, asserts that “based upon the reading of the plaintiff’s declaration (attached hereto)[,] it is clear that the defendants’ insurance company induced the plaintiff to delay the filing of her lawsuit, so as to miss the statute of limitations.” (See Pl.’s opposition to demurrer, p.2:3-15 (also stating that “Plaintiff in this case was induced by the insurance adjuster not to file suit, he even extended the statute of limitations and began ‘negotiating’ settlement of the case… [thereafter,] he abandoned all communication with the plaintiff when the date for filing the lawsuit was approaching… [b]asically, tricking the plaintiff”).) In Plaintiff’s declaration, Plaintiff states that Defendants’ insurance claims examiner, Brad Johnson, “told [Plaintiff] not to worry about the statute of limitations.” (Pl.’s declaration ¶¶ 4-5.)

Here, it appears that the doctrine of equitable estoppel would apply. (See Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363, 383 (stating that “[e]quitable estoppel… addresses… the circumstances in which a party will be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to an admittedly untimely action because his conduct has induced another into forbearing suit within the applicable limitations period”); see also Evid. Code § 623 (stating that “[w]henever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it”); see also Sofranek v. County of Merced (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1250 (stating that “[u]nder appropriate circumstances equitable estoppel will preclude a defendant from pleading the bar of the statute of limitations where the plaintiff was induced to refrain from bringing a timely action by the fraud, misrepresentation or deceptions of defendant”; also stating that “[i]n order to assert equitable estoppel, the following four elements must be present: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct be acted on, or must so act that the party asserting estoppel had a right to believe it was so intended; (3) the party asserting estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury”).) However, Plaintiff has failed to allege the facts that would otherwise allow for the application of equitable estoppel in her complaint. Accordingly, the demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend so as to allow Plaintiff to allege such facts.

The Court will prepare the order.