Jones v. Brown CA1/1

Filed 8/15/25 Jones v. Brown CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

LAVERNE NORMAN JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A169426 GORDON D. BROWN, (San Mateo County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Court No. 23-CIV-01355)

Plaintiff Laverne Norman Jones appeals from a judgment entered against her due to her failure to file a timely amended complaint after the trial court granted defendant Gordon Brown’s demurrer and gave Jones leave to amend. Brown cross-appeals, contending the trial court should have entered its judgment of dismissal with, instead of without, prejudice. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the case against Brown, but we remand for the court to enter the judgment with prejudice. I. BACKGROUND Jones sued Brown and others for alleged wrongdoing in relation to a trust and the disposition of a home, but the facts underlying the dispute are immaterial to the issues in this appeal. Brown demurred to Jones’s complaint, and in early September 2023 the trial court sustained the

demurrer on the basis of the statute of limitations. The court granted Jones leave to file an amended complaint, giving her a deadline of September 20 by which to do it. Jones did not file an amended complaint (although she claims she emailed one to the court), and in early November the court issued an order to show cause why her case against Brown should not be dismissed. After holding a hearing, the court dismissed Jones’s claims against Brown, and entered a judgment in his favor, but did so without prejudice.1 In its dismissal order, the trial court rejected Jones’s excuse that she was unable to file the amended complaint before the deadline because she was “bedridden” and “too sick to come to [the] Court to file her papers.” The court found that the excuse fell flat because Jones reported she fell ill on October 11, which was after the expiration of the court’s deadline. The court also found that Jones “knows how to properly file documents” and that Jones’s contentions were “belied by the fact[s] that [Jones] has successfully electronically filed documents” and “attended a hearing in this action on October 4, 2023.” Jones filed a notice of appeal, purporting to appeal not only from the judgment of dismissal but also from an order granting attorney fees. Brown, however, was not awarded attorney fees in connection with the dismissal.2