## Facts

- Vincent E. Scholes owned real property adjacent to Lambirth Trucking Company’s soil-amendment operation, which ground wood products and stored wood chips, sawdust, and rice hulls.
- Debris from Lambirth’s operation allegedly blew onto Scholes’s property over time.
- A fire occurred at Lambirth’s site on May 12, 2007; afterward, Scholes complained about combustible material accumulating on his property, and authorities warned Lambirth about storage hazards.
- On May 21, 2007, another fire started on Lambirth’s property, spread to Scholes’s property, and allegedly damaged Scholes’s land and crops and caused loss of use.
- Scholes filed an original complaint on May 21, 2010, framed as a dispute over compensation on an insurance claim; it did not clearly identify the incident date, tort theory, or factual basis for liability.
- After multiple amendments and rulings on pleadings, Scholes filed a third amended complaint on November 10, 2011, alleging negligent trespass, intentional trespass, and strict liability based on the 2007 fire and alleged accumulation of combustible materials.
- The trial court sustained Lambirth’s demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment for Lambirth.

## Issues

1. Whether the third amended complaint’s trespass and strict-liability theories related back to the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes.
2. Whether the third amended complaint sufficiently pleaded intentional trespass and strict liability, and whether denial of further leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Lambirth.
- The third amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint and was barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
- The third amended complaint also failed to state viable claims for intentional trespass and strict liability on the alleged facts.
- Denial of further leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because Scholes had repeated opportunities and did not show how he could cure the defects.

## Legal Principles

- An amended complaint relates back to the filing date of the original complaint only if it rests on the same general set of facts, involves the same injury, and refers to the same injury-producing instrumentality such that the defendant had fair notice of the basis for liability.
- A pleading framed as a generic demand for additional insurance compensation, without alleging the factual and wrongful conduct supporting later tort theories, does not provide notice sufficient for relation back of new causes of action.
- Intentional trespass requires allegations that the defendant intentionally performed an act that resulted in an unlawful entry onto the plaintiff’s property; allegations sounding in negligent handling or inadvertent spread are insufficient to plead intent.
- Strict liability for hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities is limited; a plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendant’s activity fits within a recognized strict-liability category.
- A plaintiff seeking leave to amend must show a reasonable possibility of curing defects by amendment; repeated unsuccessful amendments and failure to propose curative facts support denial of further leave.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal after demurrer because the later-pleaded trespass and strict-liability theories were new causes of action that did not relate back to the sparse, insurance-dispute-style original complaint and were time-barred, and because the complaint did not plausibly allege intentional trespass or a basis for strict liability; further leave to amend was properly denied.


Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co., 10 Cal. App. 5th 590, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 794 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)