Thomas

Thomas v. Gilliland

Bad Law
115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 520·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 587·2002 Daily Journal DAR 759·95 Cal. App. 4th 427·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 616
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 2002B146508California2,608 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

In this appeal we review the contention that the statute of limitations is tolled when a complaint is filed so that a plaintiff may dismiss the complaint and refile the same action long after the statute of limitations has expired. We affirm the trial court’s rejection of this preposterous proposition.

I

To determine the merits of a demurrer, the material facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admitted. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584 , 591 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 487 P.2d 1241 , 41 A.L.R.3d 1187 ].) There is, however, an exception to this rule. The exception allows a court to take judicial notice of relevant documents in related judicial proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a) & Evid. Code, §§ 450-452.) This exception is applicable here because it is necessary to take judicial notice of the complaint first filed by appellant in 1998 and voluntarily dismissed 22 months later, a dismissal which was immediately followed on that very day by the filing of the second complaint embodying the same cause of action.

On February 20, 1998, appellant Miles Thomas discovered that he sustained injuries as a result of medical treatment provided by respondent C.…

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.