This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 23:38:45 (UTC).

TRACEY ANN VERHOEVEN VS BRAULIO IVAN ACEVESZARAGOZA ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/24/2017 TRACEY ANN VERHOEVEN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against BRAULIO IVAN ACEVESZARAGOZA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2021

  • Filing Date:

    08/24/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VERHOEVEN TRACEY ANN

Defendants and Respondents

ACEVESZARAGOZA BRAULIO IVAN

DOES 1-35

ACEVES BRAULIO IVAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SPELLERBERG JEFFERY K. ESQ.

SPELLERBERG JEFFERY KENT

Defendant Attorney

BARMASSE JASON M.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

5/10/2018: Minute Order

ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

6/11/2018: ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

11/15/2018: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Minute Order

12/7/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/7/2018: Minute Order

Order Granting Attorney"s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

12/21/2018: Order Granting Attorney"s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Notice

12/24/2018: Notice

Unknown

1/2/2019: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

4/18/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

4/18/2019: Minute Order

Answer

1/22/2018: Answer

Proof of Service

1/2/2018: Proof of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

10/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

10/27/2017: DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

Other -

9/14/2017: Other -

CoverSheet

8/24/2017: CoverSheet

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Braulio Ivan Aceves (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2019
  • Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Braulio Ivan Aceveszaragoza (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Notice (of Vacating Final Status Conference and Trial Dates and Setting Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Braulio Ivan Aceves (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (for Attorney Scott E. Braybrooke, Voss, Silverman & Braybrooke LLP as to Defendant Braulio Ivan Aceves) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Attorney Scot...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
20 More Docket Entries
  • 10/27/2017
  • DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Tracey Ann Verhoeven (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Tracey Ann Verhoeven (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC672021    Hearing Date: October 28, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2017, Plaintiff Tracey Ann Verhoeven (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Braulio Ivan Aceveszaragoza and DOES 1 to 35, asserting a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence in connection with an automobile accident that occurred on August 23, 2015, at the intersection of Pico Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, in Santa Monica, California. Plaintiff alleged Defendant Braulio Ivan Aceveszaragoza operated the motor vehicle. Plaintiff alleged she suffered wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity.

On January 22, 2018, Defendant Braulio Ivan Aceves (sued/served as Braulio Ivan Aceveszaragoza) (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

Trial is set for November 18, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings in this action.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may move for judgment on the pleadings or the court may, on its own motion, grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (C.C.P. §438(b)(1)-(2).) If the moving party is a defendant, a motion for judgment on the pleadings under C.C.P. §438 may be made on the ground that the “complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (C.C.P. §438(c)(1)(B)(ii).) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings “shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or the in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit.” (C.C.P. §438(d).)

“The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citations]” (Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) “Judgment on the pleadings does not depend upon a resolution of questions of witness credibility or evidentiary conflicts. In fact, judgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution. [Citation]” (Id.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Braulio Ivan Aceves (“Defendant”) moves for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiff Tracey Ann Verhoeven (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to C.C.P. §438.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on August 24, 2017. The complaint contains a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. Plaintiff, by way of the complaint, seeks recovery for personal injuries and property damages.

Plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries appears to be time-barred on the face of the complaint. Plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries is subject to the two-year statute of limitations set forth in C.C.P. §335.1. Generally, the cause of action begins to accrue on the date of the plaintiff’s injury, unless the discovery rule applies. (See Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1109 (“As previously noted, both sides agree that the one-year limitations period of section 340, subdivision (3) applies to this case. Both sides also agree that the common law rule, that an action accrues on the date of injury [Citation], applies only as modified by the ‘discovery rule.’”).) In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged the accident occurred on August 23, 2015. Plaintiff did not file the instant action until August 24, 2017, two years and one day after the alleged accident occurred. (See C.C.P. §12 (“The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day, and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded.”).) Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries appears to be time-barred on the face of the complaint.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant waived the statute of limitations affirmative defense by failing to raise the defense in his answer and failing to amend his answer to assert the statute of limitations affirmative defense over the last four years. (Opposition, pgs. 2-12.) The Court agrees. “[A] defendant must plead defenses in an answer or demurrer, or risk waiver. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.80, subd. (a).) A defendant waives a statute of limitations defense by failing to plead it in an answer or raise it as a ground of a general demurrer.” (See Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 842-843 [citations omitted].) In this case, Defendant filed its Answer on January 22, 2018, but failed to assert an affirmative defense based on a failure to comply with the statute of limitations. Having failed to raise the defense by demurrer or answer when he appeared in 2018, Defendant waived its right to rely on such a defense. It cannot simply raise the defense now by way of a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Defendant argues that it may properly raise the affirmative defense by motion for judgment on the pleadings to challenge a complaint that is untimely on its face. But such a rule would eviscerate the general principle that an affirmative defense, like a failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations, must be promptly raised or it will be forfeited. The Court rejects the notion that a defendant can file an answer without mentioning a limitations defense, make no attempt to amend the answer to add such a defense, and then simply raise the defense through a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the eve of trial. Such a result would undermine established pleading standards and their goal of providing fair notice of the issues that are to be litigated.

Because the Court finds that Defendant has waived any right to assert a limitations affirmative defense, it is unnecessary to address the other opposing arguments raised by Plaintiff.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.