Corzo v. Parks Palmer Turner & Yemenidjian, LLP CA
Renato Corzo and his partnership sued the partnership’s accountants for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant accountants filed a demurrer arguing that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court agreed. Corzo asked for and received leave to amend his complaint. Corzo’s next complaint included new facts he believed tolled the statute of limitations. Defendants demurred again. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the amended complaint was a “sham” pleading engineered to avoid the statute of limitations.
Was it? Yes. We agree with the trial court that Corzo’s amended complaint was a sham pleading. Because Corzo has not demonstrated he can amend the pleading to state a viable cause of action not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice.
Comments on Corzo v. Parks Palmer Turner & Yemenidjian, LLP CA