Sobeck & Associates, Inc. v. B & R Investments No. 24

In this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, Sobeck and Associates, Inc. appeals from a judgment in favor of B & R Investments No. 24 and Bestor Engineers, Inc. In the proceedings below, Sobeck, Inc. had amended its complaint under the fictitious names statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 474, to substitute a named defendant in place of a previously designated Doe defendant. B & R asserted that the action was time-barred by Civil Code section 3144 because Sobeck, Inc. amended the complaint more than 90 days after learning the true identity of the new defendant. The trial court granted judgment for B & R without hearing evidence concerning unreasonable delay by Sobeck, Inc. or prejudice to the defendant. Sobeck, Inc. contends this was reversible error, and we agree. (See Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co. v. American Sav. & Loan Assn. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 352 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 292 ]; Barrows v. American Motors Corp. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 1, 8-10 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 380 ].)

Sobeck, Inc. further contends that the trial court erred by permitting Bestor to intervene and add a new party, Ray Sobeck in his individual capacity, as a defendant in the lawsuit. We need not reach…