Feng
v.
Yang

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVESep 11, 2018
A151623 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2018)

A151623

09-11-2018

JANE FENG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID YANG, Defendant and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-17-556666)

On January 25, 2017, plaintiff and appellant Jane Feng (appellant) filed a complaint asserting a cause of action for fraud against defendant and respondent David Yang (respondent). The complaint alleged respondent conspired with another person, Chen Hang, in "making [a] false October 6, 2010 Jane Feng's declaration in order to damage" Feng's "cases." The trial court sustained respondent's demurrer without leave to amend, concluding the fraud claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations (Code of Civ. Pro., § 338, subd. (d)).

Appellant's briefs on appeal do not clearly explain the basis for her fraud claim. Respondent's brief explains he previously represented appellant and summarizes her claim as follows: "Feng alleges that Yang, who was no longer representing her at the time, conspired with [Hang] (Plaintiff's alleged legal consultant at the time) to cause Feng to sign a declaration containing a 'faked story' on October 6, 2010 in opposition to a motion to enforce a settlement in" a previous action arising from a car accident.

Appellant fails to show the trial court erred in concluding the statute of limitations bars her fraud claim. In her opening brief, she merely asserts without any analysis that her claim is not barred by the statute of limitation. Appellant's reply brief admits she learned of the alleged conspiracy between respondent and Hang in documents she received on November 1, 2013, which was more than three years before she filed her complaint. She appears to suggest the limitations period was tolled for some period because her "English was not very good. . . . And those materials should be organized and analyzed." But she fails to cite any authority that provides a basis to toll the running of the limitations period.

The trial court's order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.

/s/_________


SIMONS, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.