Garcia v. CCS Companies CA5

Filed 4/5/23 Garcia v. CCS Companies CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

EFRAIN GARCIA et al., F083403 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 15CECG03847) v.

CCS COMPANIES, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. D. Tyler Tharpe, Judge. Efrain Garcia and Ofelia Garcia, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Pollak, Vida & Barer, Daniel P. Barer and Anna L. Birenbaum for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Efrain and Ofelia Garcia (plaintiffs) appeal from a judgment entered against them after the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant CCS Companies (CCS). The trial court concluded the undisputed facts showed the statute of limitations on plaintiffs’ claim of malicious prosecution ran prior to the filing of this action. We conclude CCS met its burden of demonstrating the expiration of the limitations period and plaintiffs failed to present evidence raising a triable issue of fact on that point. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs sued CCS and Gary Rosenberg, alleging deceit, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs alleged Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), through its attorney Rosenberg, sued them for subrogation after an accident involving a vehicle that plaintiffs had already sold. Allstate and Rosenberg continued to pursue the action even after plaintiffs provided documentation showing their prior sale of the vehicle. As a result, Efrain Garcia’s wages were garnished, both plaintiffs’ driver’s licenses were suspended, and a lien was placed on their home. The subrogation action was later dismissed. On or about April 23, 2014, during subsequent litigation in federal court, plaintiffs obtained documents indicating CCS hired Rosenberg and pursued the subrogation action on behalf of Allstate. This was plaintiffs’ first knowledge of CCS’s involvement. Apparently, after multiple demurrers, the only remaining claim in this case was the malicious prosecution cause of action against CCS. CCS moved for summary judgment, asserting, among other things, that the statute of limitations on plaintiffs’ cause of action against it expired before the complaint in this action was filed. CCS’s motion for summary judgment presented these facts: On January 4, 2003, a driver insured by Allstate was involved in an accident with a Ford motor vehicle. The police report identified plaintiffs as the registered owners of the Ford vehicle, but they told the police that they had sold the vehicle. CCS, on behalf of Allstate, retained attorney Rosenberg and sued plaintiffs for subrogation. On November 14, 2011, the subrogation action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In 2012, plaintiffs sued