This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/02/2021 at 06:22:52 (UTC).

JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ VS KASSANDRA HEREDIA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/19/2019 JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KASSANDRA HEREDIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0665

  • Filing Date:

    11/19/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MARTINEZ GONZALEZ JOSE MANUEL

Defendants

HEREDIA KASSANDRA

GONZALES RAUL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

YEREMIAN ARPINEH

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

8/7/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 08/07/2020

8/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 08/07/2020

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

8/10/2020: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Notice (name extension) - Notice Amended Notice re Hearing on Kassandra Heredia and Raul Gonzalez' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint

8/11/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Amended Notice re Hearing on Kassandra Heredia and Raul Gonzalez' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

9/2/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Reply (name extension) - Reply Defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition to demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint

9/17/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply Defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition to demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

9/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/2/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint; Memorandum of P and A's;Declaration of Andrew Meyers and Notice of Lodgment and Proposed Order

6/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint; Memorandum of P and A's;Declaration of Andrew Meyers and Notice of Lodgment and Proposed Order

Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing for Publication re: Kassandra

2/25/2020: Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing for Publication re: Kassandra

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/17/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

11/19/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/19/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/19/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

11/19/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11/19/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: KASSANDRA HEREDIA (Defendant); RAUL GONZALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/02/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/22/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/02/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 09/24/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/24/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketReply Defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition to demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint; Filed by: KASSANDRA HEREDIA (Defendant); RAUL GONZALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketOpposition TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; Filed by: JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 09/24/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review Re: Status of Defendant's Payment of Demurrer Fees scheduled for 08/26/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/21/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketNotice Amended Notice re Hearing on Kassandra Heredia and Raul Gonzalez' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; Filed by: KASSANDRA HEREDIA (Defendant); RAUL GONZALES (Defendant); As to: JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 02/11/2020
  • DocketApplication for Publication; Filed by: JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ (Plaintiff); As to: KASSANDRA HEREDIA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ (Plaintiff); As to: RAUL GONZALES (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 12/16/2019; Service Cost: 65.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/22/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ (Plaintiff); As to: KASSANDRA HEREDIA (Defendant); RAUL GONZALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ (Plaintiff); As to: KASSANDRA HEREDIA (Defendant); RAUL GONZALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: JOSE MANUEL MARTINEZ GONZALEZ (Plaintiff); As to: KASSANDRA HEREDIA (Defendant); RAUL GONZALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10665    Hearing Date: September 24, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., September 24, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Martinez Gonzalez v. Heredia, et al. COMPL. FILED: 11-19-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC10665 DISC. C/O: 04-18-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 05-03-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-18-21

PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Raul Gonzalez and Kassandra Heredia

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Jose Manuel Martinez Gonzalez

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Raul Gonzales and Kassandra Heredia’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on September 2, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on September 17, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Manuel Martinez Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for general negligence against Kassandra Heredia (“Heredia”) and Raul Gonzales (“Gonzales”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant Gonzales was served with the Summons and Complaint on December 12, 2019 by substituted service. (12/17/19 Proof of Service.) Plaintiff has not yet filed a proof of service demonstrating Defendant Heredia was also served with the Summons and Complaint.

On June 22, 2020, Defendants filed a joint Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Demurrer”). On August 11, 2020, Defendants filed an Amended Notice re: Hearing on Defendants’ Demurrer. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on September 2, 2020, and Defendants filed a Reply brief on September 17, 2020.

  1. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

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. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

  1. Discussion

A. Timeliness of Demurrer

As an initial matter, the Court notes the Demurrer is untimely. Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40, subdivision (a) provides that a person against whom a complaint has been filed may, within thirty (30) days after service of the complaint, demur to the complaint. (Italics added.) Here, Defendant Gonzales was served with the Summons and Complaint on December 12, 2019 by substituted service, but did not file the instant Demurrer until June 22, 2020. However, an untimely demurrer may be considered by the Court in its discretion. (Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 742, 749.) In the interest of judicial economy and based on the arguments presented by the parties, the Court chooses to exercise such discretion here.

B. Meet and Confer Requirement

 

Defendants’ Demurrer is accompanied by a declaration stating that on April 24, 2020, Defendants’ counsel spoke to Plaintiff’s counsel over the phone regarding the statute of limitations issue. (Dem., Myers Decl., ¶ 4.) Thereafter, Defendants’ counsel mailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, but did not receive a response. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Thus, the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

C. Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff alleges that, on May 20, 2017, he and Defendants were involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in personal injuries to him. (Compl., p. 4, ¶ GN-1.)

Defendants demur to the Complaint arguing Plaintiff’s action is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. (Dem., p. 2:1-8.) Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 requires that actions for personal injury be brought within two years. Thus, on its face, it appears that Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on November 19, 2019, is time-barred.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that by filing a lawsuit against Defendants in small claims court on May 2, 2018, he preserved the statute of limitations. (Oppo., p. 2:9-12.) Notably, Plaintiff did not provide the Court with the small claims case number or request judicial notice of any documents filed in the small claims action. Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether a small claims action was actually filed. Without citing any authority, Plaintiff repeatedly argues that filing a small claims action preserves the statute of limitations for the instant limited action, and thus it is not time-barred. In Reply, Defendants rely on Thomas v. Gillibrand (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 427, to refute Plaintiff’s unsupported argument. In Thomas, the court reiterated that “[i]n the absence of a statute, a party cannot deduct from the period of the statute of limitations applicable to his case the time consumed by the pendency of an action in which he sought to have the matter adjudicated, but which was dismissed without prejudice to him.” (Thomas v. Gillibrand (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 427, 433.) Thus, Plaintiff’s purported small claims action did not preserve the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff also states that on May 31, 2018, Defendants filed an unlimited civil action against Plaintiff, LASC Case No. BC708326 (the “Unlimited Action”). (Oppo., p. 2:16-20.) Although Plaintiff did not request judicial notice of this matter or any documents filed therein, the Court, sua sponte, takes judicial notice of this matter. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Defendants’ Unlimited Action arose from the same May 20, 2017 accident for which Plaintiff seeks damages in this limited action. (See Hereida v. Martinez Gonzales, LASC Case No. BC7088326, Compl., p. 4, ¶ MV-1.) Importantly, Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30, subdivision (a), provides that, “[e]xcept as provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.” (Italics added.) Plaintiff filed an answer in the Unlimited Action on June 21, 2018. However, he did not file a cross-complaint for damages arising from the same May 20, 2017 accident for which he now seeks relief. As Plaintiff failed to file a compulsory cross-complaint in the Unlimited Action, he is barred from seeking relief in a separate action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30.

Plaintiff further argues equitable tolling is appropriate and the action should be allowed to proceed on this basis. (Oppo., p. 6:1-27.) “Equitable tolling is a judicially created doctrine that, where applicable, will ‘suspend or extend a statute of limitations as necessary to ensure fundamental practicality and fairness.’ [Citations.] Broadly speaking, the doctrine applies ‘[w]hen an injured person has several legal remedies and, reasonably and in good faith, pursues one.’ [Citations.]…A Plaintiff seeking equitable tolling must show three elements: “ ‘ timely notice,…lack of prejudice to the defendant, and reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff.’ ” [Citations.] Where a claim is time-barred on its face, the complaint must specifically plead facts that would support equitable tolling.” (Long v. Forty Niners Football, Co, LLC. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 550, 555.) (Italics added.) The party invoking equitable tolling bears the burden of proving its applicability. (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that would support an equitable tolling claim. Nor can any additional allegations overcome the failure to file a compulsory cross-complaint in the Unlimited Action as noted above.

For all the reasons explained herein, Defendants’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Raul Gonzales and Kassandra Heredia’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer YEREMIAN ARPINEH