Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co.
10 Cal. App. 5th 590
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Scholes' 2007 fire damaged his property; fire originated at Lambirth's storage site.
- Scholes alleged negligent trespass, intentional trespass, and strict liability in related pleadings.
- Lambirth demurred; trial court sustained without leave to amend; Scholes proceeded in pro per.
- Third amended complaint (Nov. 2011) asserted three trespass theories and sought treble damages.
- Trial court held claims time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for trespass and dismissed.
- Court affirmed, concluding the original complaint failed to provide notice adequate for relation back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What statute of limitations applies to trespass claims? | Scholes argued a 3-year trespass period applies. | Lambirth argued a 2-year period governs, or that 3-year does not apply to their entry-based claim. | Three-year statute applies to trespass claims. |
| Does the amended complaint relate back to the original pleading? | Relation back should save timely filing. | Original pleading lacked sufficient facts; amendment cannot relate back. | Relation back failed; amended complaint not timely. |
| Did Civil Code 3346 apply to fire damage here? | 3346 allows triple damages for timber/tree injuries from a trespass, potentially applicable to fire. | 3346 does not apply to fires negligently set; only actual timber/tree injuries are covered. | 3346 does not apply to fire damage; damages governed by other statutes. |
| Was the original complaint sufficiently particular to notify Lambirth of the claim? | Original complaint alleged damages from fire and liability, enabling notice. | Original pleading was bare, non-specific and failed to identify the property, damages, or duties. | Original complaint was legally insufficient to provide notice; cannot relate back. |
| Should the court have allowed amendment or dismissal with leave to amend? | There may be a viable amendment curing defects. | Amendment would rely on time-barred theories; no viable cure. | No reasonable possibility amendment could cure the defect; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elton v. Anheuser-Busch Beverage Group, Inc., 50 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd 1996) (consequential damages rule for trespass evolved; direct/consequential distinction abandoned)
- Gould v. Madonna, 5 Cal.App.3d 404 (Cal. App. Dist. 3rd 1970) (3346 not applicable to fires negligently set; Health/Safety Codes govern fire liability)
- Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 442 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd 2009) (disagrees with Gould on 3346 applicability to fire damage)
- Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 135 Cal.App.4th 409 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd 2005) (illustrates limits of relation-back when original pleading lacks operative facts)
- Pointe San Diego Residential Community L.P. v. Procipio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, 195 Cal.App.4th 265 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2011) (notice-based relation back hinges on specificity and similarity of claims)
- Barrington v. A.H. Robins Co., 39 Cal.3d 146 (Cal. 1985) (relation-back framework and notice considerations in amendment timing)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (relation-back and pleading standards for amended complaints)