Wells

Wells v. 99 Cents Only Stores CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 2022A161335California2,208 words

Opinion

Opinion

Burns, J.

BACKGROUND

Wells alleges that on August 20, 2017, she was severely injured and required hospitalization and surgery after she tripped and fell over a bread crate at a 99 Cents Only Store. She asserts causes of action against 99 Cents Only Stores based on negligence and premises liability. The statute of limitations for her personal injury action was two years (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1), and it expired on August 20, 2019. Wells sent her complaint by facsimile transmission to the Alameda County Superior Court at 8:13 p.m. on August 20, 2019,

1 the final day of the limitations period. The clerk of the court processed the filing the next day and stamped the complaint with a filing date of August 21, 2019. Rule 1.8(a)(3) of the Superior Court of Alameda County, Local Rules (rule 1.8(a)(3) or Alameda County rule) provides that “[d]ocuments may be faxed to the court 24 hours a day, although filings received after 4 p.m. or on court holidays or weekends will be deemed filed on the next court day.” After 99 Cents Only Stores demurred to the complaint, the trial court sustained the demurrer because the face of the complaint indicated it was barred by the statute of limitations. (See Lee…

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.