This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 03:01:23 (UTC).

JESUS CHAVEZ-NAVA VS RAMON JIMENEZ

Case Summary

On 02/06/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by JESUS CHAVEZ-NAVA against RAMON JIMENEZ in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3194

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

CHAVEZ-NAVA JESUS

Respondents and Defendants

JIMENEZ RAMON

DOES 1 TO 25

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/15/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUMMONS

2/6/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

2/6/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/15/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jesus Chavez-Nava (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jesus Chavez-Nava (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Jesus Chavez-Nava (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693194    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JESUS CHAVEZ-NAVA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RAMON JIMENEZ, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC693194

[TENATATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; DEEMING MOTION TO STRIKE MOOT

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 1, 2019

Plaintiff, Jesus Chavez-Nava filed this action against Defendant, Ramon Jimenez for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The accident occurred on 1/21/16, and Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on 2/06/18. Defendant and Plaintiff met and conferred concerning statute of limitations issues with the complaint, and Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging the statute of limitations was tolled per CCP §351. Defendant attempted to meet and confer concerning his position that §351 does not apply to cases arising out of automobile accidents, and Plaintiff indicated an intent to respond. Plaintiff did not respond, and did not oppose this demurrer.

At this time, Defendant demurs to the FAC, contending it is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Rutter Guide on Statutes of Limitations, §§5:180, et seq., explains the following concerning tolling of the statute of limitations during out-of-state periods in the context of automobile accidents:

Motorists involved in local accidents: Similarly, CCP §351 generally does not toll the statute of limitations on actions arising from accidents on California roads because motorists using local roads consent to personal service in such actions. [See Veh.C. §17463]

Veh.C. §17463 has been applied to actions against both resident and nonresident motorists. [See Litwin v. Estate of Formela (2010) 186 CA4th 607, 616-617, 111 CR3d 868, 874; Bigelow v. Smik (1970) 6 CA3d 10, 14, 85 CR 613, 616; and Dew v. Appleberry (1979) 23 C3d 630, 635, 153 CR 219, 222, fn. 8]

1) [5:181] Resident motorists: By accepting a driver's license or certificate of ownership, California residents consent to service of process upon themselves “within or without the state.” [See Veh.C. §§ 17459, 17460; Hirsch v. Blish (1977) 76 CA3d 163, 166, 142 CR 646, 647-648—statute of limitations continues to run on action against resident motorist who can be served outside the state]

a) [5:182] Subsequent change of residence immaterial: The resident motorist's consent continues regardless of a subsequent change of residence. [Veh.C. §§17459, 17460; see Mounts v. Uyeda (1991) 227 CA3d 111, 115, 277 CR 730, 733]

2) [5:183] Nonresident motorists: By using California roads, nonresidents impliedly consent to service of summons on the Director of the DMV with a copy mailed to the nonresident. Therefore, the tolling provisions of CCP § 351 do not apply. [See Veh.C. §§17451, 17455; see Solot v. Linch (1956) 46 C2d 99, 104, 292 P2d 887, 889-890—“service of process upon one whom a nonresident has, either expressly or by implication of law, appointed as his resident agent or lawful attorney upon whom legal process may be served may be effective as personal service upon the nonresident”]

3) [5:184] Exception—defendant's whereabouts unknown: CCP §351 tolling applies, however, where a resident or nonresident motorist is “out of this State and cannot be located through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” [Veh.C. §17463 (emphasis added)]

a) [5:185] “Reasonable diligence”: Veh. C. §17463 “requires an active exercise of due diligence” during the defendant's absence from California as a prerequisite to tolling of the statute of limitations. [Hirsch v. Blish, supra, 76 CA3d at 166, 142 CR at 647-648]

• [5:186] Thus, a tolling claim was rejected where, although the resident motorist was not locatable during the time he was driving to and from St. Louis on a two-week vacation trip, plaintiff made no effort to locate him during this period. [Hirsch v. Blish, supra, 76 CA3d at 166, 142 CR at 648]

• [5:187] Similarly, a tolling claim was rejected where a resident motorist went to Nevada for several hours on each of two separate days within a year after the accident, because he could at all times have been located and plaintiff failed to make any showing of effort to do so. [Dovie v. Hibler (1967) 254 CA2d 673, 675, 62 CR 228, 229]

Defendant adequately showed that the FAC, on its face, establishes a statute of limitations bar to the action. Any opposition to the demurrer was due on or before 10/21/19. The Court has not received opposition to the demurrer. The Court asks Plaintiff’s attorney, in the future, to meet and confer in good faith and dismiss actions when necessary to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of court resources. In light of the lack of opposition, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend

Defendant’s motion to strike is moot in light of the ruling on the demurrer.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.