MITO v. TEMPLE RECYCLING CENTER CORPORATION
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>MITO v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >MITO</b><b<br /> > v. </b><b<br /> >TEMPLE</b><b<br /> ><br /> RECYCLING CENTER CORPORATION</b><b ></b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/9/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION ONE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=672<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=336 valign=top ><br /> <br/>KAROLEEN<br /> MITO et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs<br /> and Appellants,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>TEMPLE RECYCLING CENTER CORPORATION et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants<br /> and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=336 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B219934<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct. No. BC395313)<br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles<br /> County. James R. Dunn,<br /> Judge. Reversed.<br /> <br/>________<br /> <br/> Justin G. Lynch for Plaintiffs and<br /> Appellants.<br /> <br/> Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow &<br /> Canter, Mark W. Flory and Vanessa K. Herzog for Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br/>________<br /> <br<br /> clear=all ><br /> <br/>Plaintiffs<br /> Karoleen and Magda Mito appeal from an order<br /> dismissing their complaint with prejudice for failure to file it within the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs presented their complaint for<br /> filing to the superior court clerk on July 24, 2008, which date was within the applicable two-year statute of<br /> limitations. The clerk rejected it on<br /> the ground that plaintiffs failed to attach the â€