Procedural Posture

Appellant developer sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, realtor and bank, because appellant’s amended complaint based on conspiracy and fraud was barred by the statute of limitations.

Overview: ccp 2025.260

Appellant developer filed a complaint against respondents, realtor and bank, alleging that respondents conspired in defrauding appellant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents because appellant’s amended complaint was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The issue on appeal was whether a factual issue existed that undermined the conclusion that the conspiracy was completed prior to appellant’s filing of his amended complaint. Appellant argued that prior to filing his amended complaint, respondents committed various overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that prevented the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations. The court held that the tortious acts were committed within the statute of limitations period prior to the filing of the effective amendments to the complaint. The court found that a substantial fact issue existed as to the nature and scope of respondents’ conspiracy that required a resolution by a trial. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, and denied summary judgment in favor of respondents.

Outcome

The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, and denied summary judgment in favor of respondents, realtor and bank, because appellant developer’s amended complaint based on conspiracy and fraud was not barred by the statute of limitations.