People v. Sandoval-Lopez CA4/1

Filed 11/3/23 P. v. Sandoval-Lopez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON ALBERTO SANDOVAL- D081089 LOPEZ,

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. v. 37-2017-00023697-CU-PO-CTL)

JOSE DANIEL GOMEZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Meyer, Judge. Affirmed.

Felipe D. Hueso, APLC and Felipe D. Hueso for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of J. Carlos Fox and J. Carlos Fox for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Ramon Alberto Sandoval-Lopez1 appeals a judgment entered after the trial court treated respondent Jose Daniel Gomez’s demurrer to Ramon’s complaint as a motion to dismiss and granted it without leave to amend. Ramon’s sole argument is that the court erroneously failed to grant him leave to amend his complaint. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2017, Ramon filed the underlying civil complaint in the San Diego Superior Court against Gomez, Manuel Antonio, Cruz Sandoval, and Victoria Lugo. The parties do not include a copy of the complaint in the record, but we glean from the demurrer that Ramon alleged causes of action for negligence, violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and “civil conspiracy.” He also sought declaratory relief. Gomez demurred to all causes of action and submitted a supporting declaration, arguing for dismissal of the entire case because Ramon failed to

comply with Code of Civil Procedure2 sections 583.210, subdivision (a) and 583.420, subdivision (a)(2)(A), as Ramon did not serve the summons and complaint on Gomez within three years of its filing. Specifically, Ramon filed the complaint in June 2017, and served it on Gomez in November 2021. Gomez also argued the court should dismiss each cause of action because Ramon failed to plead the essential elements of negligence, violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and declaratory relief. Gomez argued no “civil conspiracy” cause of action exists in California. Gomez