The claims in pro per plaintiff’s second amended complaint were time-barred because his initial complaint—filed before the limitations period had expired—was so deficient that it did not put the defendant on notice of any claim. Following Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 409, this decision holds that a pro per plaintiff’s original complaint for “dispute compensation on insurance claim” was so deficient that it did not give the defendant notice of any claim, so the plaintiff’s second amended complaint for trespass through a fire accidently set on the defendant’s adjoining property which damaged plaintiff’s property was untimely. The second amended complaint was filed more than three years after the fire. It could not relate back to the timely original complaint because that complaint gave the defendant no notice of the claim eventually alleged in the second amended complaint.
California Court of Appeal, Third District (Raye, P.J.); April 6, 2017; 2017 WL 1294828