Case Number: BC722722 Hearing Date: June 18, 2019 Dept: 4A

Demurrer

The Court has considered the moving papers. Plaintiff does not oppose. The Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Weiss (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Kasey Washburn (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence for a traffic collision that occurred on September 20, 2016.

On May 15, 2019, Defendant filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint arguing it does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action because it is barred by the statute of limitations.

Trial is set for March 23, 2020.

Plaintiff is self-represented. Self-represented parties are treated like any other party and thus must adhere to the rules of procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests that the Court sustain her demurrer because Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the relevant statute of limitations.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s summons and complaint pursuant to Evidence Code sections 450, 452, and 453. Plaintiff does not oppose.

“Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law.” (Evid. Code § 450.) Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), authorizes the court to take judicial notice of its own records. Regarding documents of which the court grants judicial notice, the court is not mandated to accept a particular interpretation proposed by the parties. (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374.)

The Court grants the request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s summons and complaint because they are court records.

LEGAL STANDARD

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) A demurring party shall file a declaration concerning the meet and confer. (Id., subd. (a)(3).)

Demurrer

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Defendant’s counsel’s declaration does not state whether Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff prior to filing her demurrer. Therefore, Defendant did not file a meet and confer declaration sufficient to satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41’s requirements. However, the Court will consider the demurrer on the merits. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4) [an insufficient declaration is not grounds to overrule demurrer].) The Court orders the parties to strictly comply with any meet and confer requirement in the future.

Demurrer

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims based on motor vehicle negligence is two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.)

This period begins to run when the cause of action accrues. (Id., 312.) Ordinarily, a cause of action “accrues” when, under the substantive law, the wrongful act is committed and the liability arises. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-807.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 20, 2016 in which he suffered physical injury. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim accrued on September 20, 2016. Plaintiff filed the complaint on September 21, 2018, which is more than two years after the accident. Therefore, the complaint shows on its face shows that the cause of action is time-barred.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer with 30 days’ leave to amend.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.