Joslin

Joslin v. H.A.S. Insurance Brokerage

Good Law
184 Cal. App. 3d 369·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1907·228 Cal. Rptr. 878
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 1986E002333California2,422 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rickles, J.

Plaintiffs Imogean Joslin and Roxie E. Dumas (mother and daughter) have appealed from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant H.A.S. Insurance Brokerage (hereafter H.A.S.) following the sustaining of H. A.S.’s demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiffs had substituted H.A.S. in place of a fictitiously named defendant but the court ruled the action against H.A.S. was barred by the statute of limitations because plaintiffs “knew or should have known” the identity of H.A.S. when the complaint was filed.

The issues on appeal are whether the court properly took judicial notice of deposition testimony in ruling on the demurrer, whether constructive as well as actual knowledge of the identity of a fictitiously named defendant will preclude later substitution, and whether the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.

Facts

The original complaint, which was filed in March 1982, alleged that plaintiffs purchased a certain Jeep vehicle in April 1981 from Desert Datsun Incorporated of Cathedral City. As part of the purchase plaintiffs agreed to pay $480 for a 12-month service contract which was imprinted with the name of Manufacturers Insurance Services Corporation (hereafter…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.