Portee v. Woodall
Filed 3/17/06 Portee v. Woodall CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DAVID B. PORTEE, H028598
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Clara County
Superior Court
v. No. 1-03-CV003482)
JACK WOODALL,
Defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________________/
Defendant Jack Woodall's demurrer to plaintiff David B. Portee's third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. The basis for the demurrer was that the pleading demonstrated on its face that the statute of limitations had expired and that equitable estoppel was inapplicable. Portee appeals and claims that (1) he properly pleaded equitable estoppel, (2) the superior court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend and (3) the superior court's order gave an inadequate statement of reasons. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.
I. Background
Portee initiated this action in August 2003. Woodall's demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Portee filed a first amended complaint in December 2003 and a second amended complaint in April 2004. Woodall's demurrer to the second amended complaint was sustained with leave to amend.
Portee filed a third amended complaint in October 2004. The third amended complaint purported to allege causes of action for intentional tort, negligence and fraud against Woodall, a police officer, based on Woodall's declaration in support of his application for an arrest warrant for Portee and his arrest of Portee in August 1981. Portee alleged that the declaration falsely stated that witness Dan Ito had seen the license number on the vehicle that left the scene of the crime for which Portee was arrested. Portee alleged that Woodall knew at that time that Ito had not seen the license number because Ito had told Woodall so and told Woodall that another individual named Juan had seen the license number.
The third amended complaint contained the following allegation: â€
