Madhok v. Fidelity National Title Company CA1/3

Filed 10/12/21 Madhok v. Fidelity National Title Company CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

DEVINDER SINGH MADHOK, Plaintiff and Appellant, A162163 v. (Alameda County FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE Super. Ct. No. HG19042274) COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

Devinder Madhok appeals in propria persona from a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Fidelity National Title Company (Fidelity), concluding Madhok’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 5, 2017, Madhok filed a small claims complaint against Fidelity for its failure to identify an outstanding lien on his property. Madhok sought $10,000.00 in damages for, among other things, loss of an existing contract to sell the property. The court entered a judgment in favor of Fidelity. In November 2019, Madhok filed a superior court complaint against Fidelity. He claimed Fidelity breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to deliver an accurate title report. This failure, Madhok

1

alleged, resulted in damages that Fidelity refused to cover under his title policy. Fidelity moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Madhok’s claims were barred under the two-year statute of limitations for contract disputes. (See Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 339, subd. (1).) Madhok argued the statute of limitations was equitably tolled during the pendency of his small claims action. In a November 2020 tentative ruling, the trial court rejected Madhok’s argument and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. After Madhok did not contest the ruling, the trial court adopted its tentative decision. Madhok filed a motion to “set aside the Dismissal,” arguing he was deprived of an opportunity to contest the tentative decision. After a hearing considering Madhok’s arguments, the trial court denied the motion and stated “the Court affirms its tentative ruling and grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, for the same reasons set forth in the Court’s prior” November 2020 order. DISCUSSION Madhok argues the trial court erroneously granted Fidelity judgment on the pleadings because he timely filed his complaint.2 We disagree.