2012-00127487-CU-PA

Aweke Hayile vs. Ana L. Ortega

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Filed By: Hanna, Dennis G. I.

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) is OVERRULED.

This action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on March 27, 2011.

Plaintiff filed her form complaint in this action on July 6, 2012 for Motor Vehicle and
General Negligence. The form complaint, however, failed to attach the causes of
action attachments and did not provide the date of the accident. Defendant filed an
answer to the original complaint on September 10, 2012.

Thereafter, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings based on the grounds that
the complaint did not allege any causes of action. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend on the grounds that the additional pages containing the causes of action were
erroneously omitted from the Court’s record. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a first amended complaint and dropped Defendant’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings as moot. The FAC, filed on June 18, 2013, alleges two causes of
action: (1) Motor Vehicle, and (2) General Negligence.

Defendant demurs to the FAC on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of
limitations.

The statute of limitations for bringing an action for personal injuries is two years. (CCP
335.1.) Defendant argues that the FAC was filed after the 2 year statute of limitation
and does not relate back to the original filing. Defendant contends that because the
original complaint did not contain any charging allegations, there is nothing for the two
causes of action in the FAC to relate back to.

Although an amended complaint arising out of the same set of facts alleged in the
original complaint relates back to the original complaint for statute-of-limitations
purposes, the
opposite is true where the original complaint contains no operative facts at all. (
Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 409, 416.) In order to benefit
from the relation back doctrine, a plaintiff must allege in the original complaint facts
that meet the minimal fact-pleading requirement of CCP § 425.10(a). That subdivision
requires a complaint to contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”

However, “the critical inquiry is whether the defendant had adequate notice of the
claim based on the original pleading.” (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P.
v. Procopio (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 276.) “The policy behind statutes of limitation
is to put defendants on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare
a fair defense on the merits.” (Id.)

Here, it appears that Defendant had adequate notice of the claim and the need to
defend against the claims. Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s initial complaint,
denying all allegations in the complaint and causes of action. Moreover, in her motion
for judgment on the pleadings, Defendant acknowledged that the case arose from a
motor vehicle collision which happened on March 27, 2011, on southbound Howe
Avenue near Hurley Way in Sacramento, California. Defendant also attached a copy of
the traffic collision report as support for her motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Thus, given the current record before the Court, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant shall file and serve an answer by no later than December 2, 2013.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.