Sidney

Sidney v. Superior Court

Good Law
198 Cal. App. 3d 710·1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 107·244 Cal. Rptr. 31
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1988B029084California2,890 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

In this case we hold that the statute of limitations does not bar amending a compulsory cross-complaint to state a cause of action against the plaintiff for a different injury arising from the same accident where the cause of action was not barred when the original complaint was filed. Petitioner Erik Sidney seeks a writ of mandate commanding respondent superior court to grant him leave to amend his cross-complaint to seek damages for personal injury as well as property loss. Petitioner is the defendant in a negligence action (Kinoshita v. Sidney, Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. C 588711) filed by plaintiff Pauline Kinoshita.

On November 7, 1985, petitioner’s car collided with a vehicle driven by plaintiff Kinoshita. On February 24, 1986, plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury and property damage against petitioner. On April 17, 1986, petitioner filed a cross-complaint for property damages against plaintiff and A1 Munari Produce. On April 27, 1987, petitioner filed a notice of motion for leave to amend his cross-complaint by adding a cause of action for personal injuries. Petitioner alleged his failure to include the personal injury claim in his first…

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.