Case Name: Evans v. Loaiza

Case No.: 18CV333364

Defendant Ray T. Loaiza (“Defendant”) demurs to the complaint (“Complaint”) filed by plaintiff Mark H. Evans (“Plaintiff”).

I. Background

A. Factual

This is a personal injury action arising out of an accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian in Saratoga. According to the allegations of the Complaint, on August 3, 2016, Plaintiff was assisting a driver in making a tight U-turn when defendant drove toward him erratically and at an excessive speed, causing Plaintiff to quickly maneuver out of the way, resulting in injuries to his person.

B. Procedural

Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 16, 2018, asserting claims for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence. On September 11, 2019, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to both of the claims asserted in the Complaint on the grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff opposes the motion.

II. Defendant’s Demurrer

A. Statute of Limitations

The main thrust of Defendant’s demurrer is that the claims asserted by Plaintiff are untimely. A demurrer will lie to a cause of action where it appears clearly and affirmatively from the face of the complaint that that particular claim is barred by the statute of limitations. (See Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42.) The applicable limitations period for Plaintiff’s claims for personal injuries arising out of the negligent misuse of a motor vehicle is two years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. An action normally accrues, thereby triggering the running of the statute of limitations, on the date of injury. (See Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103.)

Here, the date of the subject incident and resulting injuries is alleged to be August 3, 2016. Consequently, in order to be timely, Plaintiff needed to file his complaint by August 3, 2018. However, the Complaint was not filed until August 16, 2018, seemingly rendering Plaintiff’s claims untimely and subject to demurrer.

In his opposition, Plaintiff, who was self-represented when he filed the Complaint, explains that he completed and filed his pleading on August 3, 2018 through the Odyssey eFile system, and paid the necessary fees, but it was not completed until August 16, 2018 through delays in that system that he had no control over.

Generally, unless otherwise provided, a document is deemed filed on the date it is received by the court clerk. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.20.) Documents received electronically by the court between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:59 p.m. on a court day shall be deemed filed on that court day. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (b)(3).)

Given the factual circumstances that Plaintiff describes, an argument could be made that the doctrine of equitable tolling might apply to Plaintiff’s Complaint, thereby rendering it timely. The three core elements of this doctrine, which is based on the rationale that “a plaintiff should not be barred by a statute of limitations unless the defendant would be unfairly prejudiced if the plaintiff were allowed to proceed” (Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 923), are: (1) timely notice to the defendant; (2) lack of prejudice to that defendant; and (3) reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff. (Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 319; see also Pablo v. Pipeline Co., LLC v. Public Utilities Com. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 295, 316.) Some courts have suggested that all three elements need not be present in order to apply the doctrine. (See Collier, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at 924, fn. 5.)

Problematically for Plaintiff, however, is the fact that his assertions regarding when he submitted the Complaint for filing and other relevant factual details are only in his opposition, not in his complaint or in a declaration under penalty of perjury. While it is true that demurrers are generally limited to what appears on the face of the pleadings and matters outside the pleadings that are subject to judicial notice (see Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318), evidentiary support for Plaintiff’s assertions would compel the Court to grant him leave to amend his Complaint to address the issue of the timeliness of his claims. Absent such support, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are untimely.

Consequently, Defendant’s demurrer to the claims asserted in the Complaint on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED. But because Plaintiff might be able to amend his complaint to add allegations that would support a finding of equitable tolling by a factfinder, Plaintiff is given 20 DAYS’ LEAVE to amend his complaint. Finally, if Defendant files another demurrer, he must comply with the meet-and-confer requirement contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.