DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVSB2414212·sanbernardino·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing todaySUSTAINED with thirty days of leave to amend

Coleman v. Monique, et al

Defendant Nataly Manrique’s Demurrer

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
S-17
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffColeman
DefendantNataly Manrique

Ruling

14. Coleman v. Monique, et al, Case No. CIVSB2414212 Defendant Nataly Manrique’s Demurrer 8/26/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17 The Court would SUSTAIN this unopposed demurrer with thirty days of leave to amend. Here, Plaintiff filed a terse 3-page Complaint on April 23, 2024, asserting injury and property damage arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 22, 2022. In this unopposed demurrer, Defendant asserts that the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury bars the action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) The Complaint fails to allege any equitable tolling or address this apparent shortcoming. Notably, the demurrer does not address the property damage statute of limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 338.) The Court would sustain but grant leave to amend to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to address the statute of limitations issue.

*** *** ***

16. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, v. Coley, Case No. CIVSB2214509 Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment 8/26/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

This matter was continued from June 10, 2026 Tentative Ruling The Court would GRANT. Defendant’s general appearance is sufficient to submit him to the jurisdiction of the Court. A responsive pleading is due within twenty (20) days. Case Summary This is a collections case. Plaintiff alleges maintained a credit account founded in writing with Plaintiff, with periodic billing, that required payment thereon. However, Plaintiff stopped paying on the account on February 10, 2020, leaving an open balance that is the subject of this suit. On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit for (1) account stated and (2) open book account. Relevant here, on September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service (POS) stating that Defendant was served at his home address. (See Compl., ¶11 & Exh. A [billing showing address].) The POS indicates personal service on a “brown-haired white female”.

3

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share