Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor
Cal.App.4th 471, 485; see also Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549, disapproved on other grounds in Black Sky Capital LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156.) The court, however, does not accept the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. (Spencer, 88 Cal.App.5th at 861.)
Defendants bring this motion on the basis the complaint alleges the date of plaintiff’s personal injury was September 27, 2023 and the filing date stamps on the summons and complaint are October 17, 2025. (See Chase Decl. Exh. 1.) Therefore, the time for filing the action has expired, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 (establishing a two-year deadline for filing personal injury actions.) (Mot. J. Pleadings at 4.) Plaintiff concedes the complaint is untimely, due to excusable neglect. (See Pl. Opp’n at 6.) Plaintiff also argues for equitable tolling. See id. at 3-5.)
The Court of Appeal has addressed the equitable tolling argument with regard to counsel’s argued excusable neglect. “Plaintiffs have cited no cases, and we have found none, holding that delay due to attorney neglect qualifies as ‘reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff’ within the meaning of the equitable tolling doctrine. Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 319. Indeed, the opposite is true. (Ibid.; Cf. Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Protection Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 927, 928-29 (attorney neglect is not a basis upon which to set aside a judgment of dismissal for failure to comply with statute of limitations); Todd v.
County of Los Angeles (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 661, 666 (counsel's negligence does not excuse the untimely filing of a lawsuit). (Bonifield v. County of Nevada (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 298, 306 (overruled, in part, on other grounds).)
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. The motion is granted without leave to amend because plaintiff is unable to cure his untimely complaint as the statute of limitations has passed.
18. S-CV-0056771 Hammick, James Hunter v. Vernon, Jeffrey Jace
Specially Appearing Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff and defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.
Ruling on Motion
Specially appearing defendants RentDue Capital Fund 2 LLC, Rentdue Capital LLC, Jeffrey Jace Vernon and Ann Vernon move to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Previously, the court granted plaintiff leave to engage in limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction and permitted supplemental briefing.
14
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”