This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/24/2020 at 03:30:41 (UTC).

ANDRE COLLINS VS JOSE LOPEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/24/2018 ANDRE COLLINS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOSE LOPEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7737

  • Filing Date:

    05/24/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

COLLINS ANDRE

Defendants and Respondents

TWO STAR TRUCKING

LOPEZ JOSE

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MITCHELL TIMOTHY P. ESQ.

DROUET BRETT CHRISTOPHER

DROUET BRETT CHRISTOPHER ESQ.

MITCHELL TIMOTHY PAUL ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

BERGSTEN ROBERT TROY

BERGSTEN ROBERT TROY ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

4/13/2020: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE...)

2/19/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE...)

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

1/14/2020: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD DESTINEE BROWN AS PLAINTIFF

1/2/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD DESTINEE BROWN AS PLAINTIFF

Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/23/2019: Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice - NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF TRIAL ATTORNEY

11/4/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF TRIAL ATTORNEY

Notice of Ruling

6/12/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

5/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

3/14/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

4/2/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Response - RESPONSE TO IDC

4/25/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO IDC

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

5/3/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

5/8/2019: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT;REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

8/23/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT;REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT;REQUEST FO JURY TRIAL

7/19/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT;REQUEST FO JURY TRIAL

SUMMONS -

6/12/2018: SUMMONS -

Complaint -

5/24/2018: Complaint -

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Andre Collins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Notice of Settlement of Entire...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Andre Collins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Notice of Settlement of Entire...) of 02/19/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave (To File First Amended Complaint as A Plaintiff and Deeming The First Amended Complaint Filed and Served) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To File First Amended...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Andre Collins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Andre Collins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Andre Collins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT;REQUEST FO JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Andre Collins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Andre Collins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707737    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 29

Collins v. Lopez et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File A First Amended Complaint Adding Destinee Brown as a Plaintiff and Deeming the First Amended Complaint Filed and Served on 12/23/2019 is DENIED.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff Andre Collins alleges that he was inside of his car in a parking lot when Defendant Jose Lopez struck his vehicle while making a turn. Lopez was allegedly acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Two Star Trucking at the time of the accident. The complaint alleges that the collision occurred on August 15, 2016.

Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint to add an additional plaintiff, Destinee Brown, as a plaintiff to the action. Ms. Brown was allegedly in the car with Mr. Lopez and allegedly suffered injuries as a result of the collision. Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that Ms. Brown’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

“A new plaintiff cannot be joined after the statute of limitations has run where he or she seeks to enforce an independent right or to impose greater liability upon the defendant. In such cases, the amended complaint does not relate back to the filing of the original.” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 6-E (citing Bartalo v. Sup.Ct. (Rosman) (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 526, 533, 374; Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr. (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 1278); see also Andersen v. Barton Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal. App. 3d 678, 682-83 (if it asserts a new cause of action, leave to file a complaint in intervention “must be filed within the pertinent limitations period.”)

The statue of limitations for injuries caused by the neglect of another is two years from the date of accrual. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1. Here, the accident occurred on August 15, 2016. The statute of limitations on Ms. Brown’s claim thus expired on August 15, 2018. Ms. Brown seeks to enforce an independent right and seeks to impose greater liability upon the Defendants than the initial complaint. Thus, Ms. Brown cannot be joined in this action.

Plaintiff argues that the failure to name Ms. Brown as a plaintiff resulted from a mistake of counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief under section 473(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But a plaintiff cannot obtain relief pursuant to section 473(a) and (b) when a claim is barred by the statute of limitations. See, e.g. Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Protection Dist. (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 927.

Plaintiff further argues that the statute of limitations was tolled under the doctrine of equitable tolling. Courts have applied equitable tolling in a number of limited, “carefully considered situations.” Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 363, 370. For example, “[e]quitable tolling suspends the statute of limitations where plaintiff has several alternative remedies, makes a good faith effort to pursue one remedy, and it later becomes necessary to pursue the other.” Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial Statute of Limitations, CH. 6-B (citing Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 410, 412-13). Equitable tolling also applies when the plaintiff pursues his or her claims in alternative forums, such as when a plaintiff, acting in good faith, pursues a worker’s compensation case against the defendant and later, when that claim is denied, files a civil action. Id. (citing cases). Equitable tolling also applies when a defendant fraudulently conceals a cause of action. “[T]he effect of equitable tolling is that the limitations period stops running during the tolling event, and begins to run again only when the tolling event has concluded.” Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 363, 370.

Here, Plaintiff has not pointed to any event that could be considered a “tolling event” that would result in the suspension of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not cited any authority for the proposition that counsel’s failure to file a complaint on his or her client’s behalf constitutes a “tolling event” that gives rise to equitable estoppel. Plaintiff’s arguments are directly contrary to the authority cited above that holds that such a mistake of counsel is not grounds for relief under section 473(a) and (b). Plaintiff has cited no authority that would support the recognition of equitable tolling to the factual situation presented here.

Plaintiff argues that Ms. Brown’s claims are not barred by the statute of limitations because they arose out of the same collision as Mr. Lopez’s claims. Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations thus relates back to the filing of the original complaint. “An amended complaint relates back to the original complaint, and thus avoids the statute of limitations as a bar, if it (1) rests on the same general set of facts as the original complaint and (2) refers to the same accident and the same injuries as the original complaint.” San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 1545, 1549, as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 21, 2007). “[A]n amended pleading that adds a new plaintiff will not relate back to the filing of the original complaint if the new party seeks to enforce an independent right or to impose greater liability against the defendants.” Id. at 1550. Here, the amended complaint seeks to enforce the independent rights of Ms. Brown based on her own, independent injuries and seeks to impose greater liability against Defendants. Her claims thus do not relate back to the original complaint.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant was “on notice” of Ms. Brown’s potential claim since at least May 2018, and thus will not be prejudiced from allowing her to assert her claim now. But the test for the statute of limitations is not when the defendant became aware of a potential claim; the test is when the complaint is filed. The issue of prejudice is irrelevant for purposes of this analysis.

The Court notes that Plaintiff first filed a motion to amend to add Ms. Brown as a plaintiff on September 13, 2018. That motion was taken off calendar because of procedural defects and it was not refiled until December 23, 2019. Plaintiff has provided no authority for the proposition that the Court should consider the first amended complaint as filed as the date of the original motion for leave to file an amended complaint. But even if the Court were to consider the first amended complaint as having been filed on that date, Ms. Brown’s claim would still be barred by the statute of limitations.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to amend the complaint to add Ms. Destinee Brown as a new plaintiff in the action.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.