Demurrer in California: A Comprehensive Guide

It appears that while Plaintiff was served with both the demurrer papers and a MTS, the Notice of a demurrer hearing, the Demurrer (if one was prepared on April 18, 2023), and the supporting memorandum of points and authorities for the Demurrer were never scanned into the digital case file with the Court and thus the Court cannot review them.

Hearing on the demurrer is therefore ordered off calendar.

The caption of the instant demurrer states that it is Defendants Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Verified Complaint. ( See Demurrer filed 1/30/23, p.1:14-16). However, the body of the notice of the demurrer indicates that the demurrer is made by Defendants Krupe Investments, Inc., the same moving party on the demurrer overruled on 3/9/23, to Plaintiffs Second Amended Verified Complaint.

The possible grounds for demurrer are set forth in C.C.P. §430.10. The demurrer failed to distinctly specify any of the subdivisions of C.C.P. §430.10. Additionally, while a proof of service was filed, it is not clear to the court that the date and time of hearing handwritten by the court’s calendar clerk on the filed demurrer was included in the copy of the demurrer mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel. The court therefore overrules this demurrer. JERRY H.

EDWARD SCHEINGOLD HEARING ON DEMURRER TO: DEMURRER FILED ON 11/8/23 BY DEF EDWARD SCHEINGOLD FILED BY: SCHEINGOLD, EDWARD LAWRENCE *TENTATIVE RULING:* Introduction Before the Court is Defendant Edward Lawrence Scheingold’s demurrer. The demurrer relates to Plaintiff Cynthia Lynn Rekar’s Complaint for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant demurs Plaintiff’s, “Causes of Actions contained in the Complaint.” (Notice of Demurrer p. 1: 25-26.)

The demurrer is therefore overruled.

The Court is concerned, however, about the various defects in the demurrer, the change of the demurrer hearing date, and the lack of opposition to the demurrer. For that reason, the Court continues the hearing on the demurrer for one month, to Monday, 8/12/19 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3.

Demurrer to Answer to Cross-complaint TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer to the entire answer is sustained with leave to amend. The demurrer to the eighth, twenty-fifth affirmative defenses are sustained without leave to amend. Cross-defendants are to file a verified amended answer within 20 days. Demurrer to Answer to Cross-complaint The cross-complaint is verified. The answer is not. A verified complaint (or cross-complaint) requires a verified answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (d).)

The demurrer is now moot. Respondent intends to demurrer to the amended petition. Currently, Respondent has reserved a demurrer hearing date of October 6, 2023. As trial in this matter is calendared for November 15, 2023, the court intends to advance the hearing date on Respondents demurrer to the amended petition.

Demurrer: WAIVED.

A demurrer must also include a notice of hearing. California Rules of Court rule 3.1320(c); Edmon & Karnow (Weil & Brown), Civil Procedure Before Trial, §7:110, p. 7(I)-50. The caption for the demurrer must state the name of the party filing the demurrer, and the name of the plaintiff against whose complaint the demurrer is being filed. California Rules of Court rule 3.1320(e).

Under CCP § 472: “(a) A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer....” Although the amended pleading was not timely filed, the court will treat the demurrer as moot.

No opposition has been filed to the Demurrer. II. Legal Standard and Discussion A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).)

Plaintiff argues the demurrer is untimely. (Opposition at pp. 5-7.) Defendants argue their demurrer is proper. (Demurrer at p. 5; Reply at pp. 4-5.) A defendant may demur to the complaint within 30 days after service of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, subd. (a).) Defendants May 11, 2022 demurrer was filed 194 days after Plaintiffs October 29, 2021 TAC.

Instead, he waited more than five months to bring the Second Demurrer and Motion to Strike. As the Second Demurrer and Motion to Strike were filed in violation of the Court’s February 21, 2019, the Court declines to consider them. Furthermore, the Second Demurrer and Motion to Strike were not served on Plaintiff with proper notice. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires at least 16 court days’ notice for a demurrer and motion to strike, plus five regular days if served by mail.

Instead, he waited more than five months to bring the Second Demurrer and Motion to Strike. As the Second Demurrer and Motion to Strike were filed in violation of the Court’s February 21, 2019, the Court declines to consider them. Furthermore, the Second Demurrer and Motion to Strike were not served on Plaintiff with proper notice. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires at least 16 court days’ notice for a demurrer and motion to strike, plus five regular days if served by mail.

Further, plaintiffs counsels address is on East Live Oak in Arcadia, but the demurrer was mailed to an address at Gidley Street in Temple City. As such, the court has no reason to believe that plaintiff even knows that a demurrer has been filed. The demurrer is also untimely. Defendant had five days to file the demurrer. This demurrer is months late. Finally, the demurrer considers issues outside the pleading. And even beyond that, the demurrer is not well taken on its merits.

On December 12, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer with Motion to Strike (Demurrer with MTS) to Plaintiffs Complaint. On January 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC). No opposition has been filed to the Demurrer. II.

DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED MCC2000862 HAACKE VS BANNER BANK COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: The demurrer of the three defendants to the plaintiff’s third amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend. Analysis: The plaintiff’s sole contention in response to the demurrer is that the defendants failed to meet and confer in a timely manner and therefore he “cannot be required to oppose the Defendants’ demurrer.”

Demurrer is SUSTAINED. The court will hear from Plaintiff regarding any grounds warranting leave to amend. 2. State Farm’s Demurrer Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

Papers Considered Plaintiff, in opposition to the instant demurrer, argued ONLY that the demurrer should not be considered because it is untimely. However, in opposition to the original demurrer, Plaintiff also argued the merits of the demurrer. For that reason, the Court has considered the original opposition, the original reply, the subsequent demurrer, the subsequent opposition, AND the subsequent reply in ruling on this motion.

Defendants Ryan Oh, Rory Real Estate, Inc., and Wilshire Real Estate, INc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEMURRER A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) A court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v.

Under CCP § 472: “(a) A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer. A party may amend the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer, upon stipulation by the parties....”

Maldonado (KC068784) Defendant Maldonado’s DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING See Analysis. Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, April 7, 2011, line 8, DEFENDANT HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD CAUSES OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF MUST PLEAD FACTS THAT SHOW THE TIME AND MANNER OF DISCOVERY OF THE MISREPRESENTATION/FRAUD AND PLAINTIFF'S INABILITY TO HAVE MADE THE DISCOVERY. DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO THE 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

Under CCP § 472: “(a) A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer...” The demurrer accordingly is taken off calendar as moot.

Under CCP § 472: “(a) A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer...” The demurrer accordingly is taken off calendar as moot.

For reasons unclear to the Court, defendants took their demurrer to the First Amended Complaint off calendar. On January 18, a day after that demurrer would have been heard, defendants then simply filed a document entitled “Defendants’ Amended Notice of Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,” purporting to set the hearing on the demurrer for March 14, 2013. Defendants’ motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint is granted.

Also on June 17, Jacobs filed this demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer sets forth two grounds: “1. The complaint is stating that the fair rental value of $66.67 per day. Rental value is excessive, and the property needs repair. “2. The pleading is uncertain (CCP 410.10(F).” (Demurrer, at p. 1, capitalization altered.) Jacobs also filed a notice on June 27 that she submits the demurrer for hearing without an appearance.

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1320(f), "[w]hen a demurrer is regularly called for hearing and one of the parties does not appear, the demurrer must be disposed of on the merits at the request of the party appearing unless for good cause the hearing is continued." Defendant did not request the demurrer be disposed on the merits. The court's ruling on the demurrer was not fully on the merits. Without any proof, Defendant asserts the demurrer was served by mail.

The cited correspondence is irrelevant to whether the Demurrer is timely as it was made long after the Demurrer had become overdue. Cross-Defendant provides no reasonable explanation for why the Demurrer was not filed on or before March 11, 2018. This obfuscation suggests to the Court that Cross-Defendant was not diligent in filing her Demurrer in a timely manner.

The demurrer is overruled. The SAC alleges sufficient facts stating this claim. Spring Valley’s Special Demurrer for Uncertainty is OVERRULED. Spring Valley does not specifically support its special demurrer in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities. On that basis, the special demurrer is deemed abandoned. (CRC 3.1113(a).)

The demurrer is overruled. The SAC alleges sufficient facts stating this claim. Spring Valley’s Special Demurrer for Uncertainty is OVERRULED. Spring Valley does not specifically support its special demurrer in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities. On that basis, the special demurrer is deemed abandoned. (CRC 3.1113(a).)

This suggests that the demurrer, the notice of demurrer, and the memorandum in support of the demurrer are all intended to be separate documents or at least separately identified sections. But here, Defendants have not only conflated their notice of demurrer with the demurrer itself, they also failed to comply with the technical requirements of Rule 3.1320, subdivision (a).

Case Number: 21STCV40343 Hearing Date: March 10, 2023 Dept: 29 TENTATIVE The hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED. Defendant Daniel Martinez is ordered to serve the demurrer on Plaintiff, and file a proof of service, showing Plaintiff has been served with the demurrer. Defendant is additionally ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff and file a meet and confer declaration.

Demurrer to Complaint Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing partys pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be.

Motion: Defendant Miller’s Demurrer to Complaint Tentative Ruling: To overrule defendant Miller’s demurer to the entire complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).) Explanation: First, defendant’s notice of demurrer and demurrer are defective, in that they do not cite to the specific portion of the demurrer statute on which they rely to support the demurrer.

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s ORIGINAL COMPLAINT is off-calendar as moot. No demurrer to the FAC has been filed with this Court as of April 12, 2017.

GRANT Defendants’ request to take judicial notice of the Complaint and SUSTAIN demurrer for failure to allege sufficient facts as follows: • Sustain demurrer to the first cause of action as against Ebert with 30 DAYS leave to amend; • Sustain demurrer to the third cause of action with 30 DAYS leave to amend; • Sustain demurrer to the fourth cause of action as to Ebert with 30 DAYS leave to amend; • Sustain demurrer to the fifth cause of action with 30 DAYS leave to amend; • Sustain demurrer to the sixth cause

Cross-Defendant River Partners' demurrer to Amended Answer to Cross-Complaint is sustained in part and overruled in part. The demurrer to Affirmative Defense 1a is sustained without leave to amend for failure to file a special demurrer. The demurrer to the second affirmative defense is sustained with leave to amend under CCP 430.20(c), for failure to plead a written or oral contract.

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 2nd Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY TERRANCE THOMPSON, ANTOINETTE THOMPSON * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants Terrance Thompson and Donna Thompson’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is continued to April 5, 2021. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Broderick Brown, declares he was not served with the demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint. While Defendants filed the demurrer on January 20, 2021, there is no Proof of Service of the demurrer in the Court’s file.

On March 5, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the FAC. On March 19, 2021, Nova filed an Opposition. On March 26, 2021, Defendants filed a Reply. Discussion DEMURRER On February 3, 2021, this Court issued a final ruling on Defendants Prestige and Ghalchi’s Demurrer to the FAC, which overruled the Demurrer as to all causes of action. On March 5, 2021, Defendants Prestige and Ghalchi filed a repeat Demurrer to the FAC.

Demurrer Meet and Confer Defendant submits the Declaration of Brenda E. Vargas, which adequately shows Counsel attempted to meet and confer prior to bringing this demurrer. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading.

The Demurrer is Procedurally Improper First, Plaintiff never scheduled a hearing for this demurrer or provided a notice of the hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320.) Plaintiff’s pleading includes a hearing date of February 13, 2020 in the caption for demurrer to answer and case management conference, but Plaintiff did not reserve a hearing date specifically for this demurrer.

If the meet and confer resolves the demurrer, Lifoam and Sarria counsel is to inform the court that the demurrer will be taken off calendar.

If the meet and confer resolves the demurrer, Lifoam and Sarria counsel is to inform the court that the demurrer will be taken off calendar.

Although the hearing date on the demurrer was not advanced but continued, the Court notes that the Notice does purport to inform Causey of the May 16, 2018 hearing date on the demurrer. In any event, the Court still does not have any record of a proof of service showing service of the demurrer on Causey. While Causey may have been served notice of the hearing date on the demurrer, it is unclear whether Causey was ever served with a copy of the demurrer itself.

On February 21, 2023, Defendant Ford filed the instant Demurrer (Demurrer) to Plaintiffs Complaint. On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC). No opposition has been filed to the Demurrer. II.

CCP § 430.41(a) requires: “Before filing a demurrer... the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

Under CPP § 1005, an opposition to a motion must be filed 9 court days prior to the hearing on the demurrer or motion. DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed the amended complaint 9 court days prior to the hearing on the Citys demurrer. As such, Plaintiff has validly submitted the FAC. The Citys demurrer to Plaintiffs original complaint is moot. Should the City wish to demurrer, it will have to file a demurrer to the FAC. CONCLUSION Defendants City of Long Beachs Demurrer is MOOT.

City, however, inexplicably filed this Demurrer nearly six months after it was served with the Complaint. The Demurrer is, therefore, untimely because it was filed 30 days after the service of the Complaint. City does not address the untimeliness of this Demurrer or argue any good cause for the Court to exercise its discretion to consider this untimely Demurrer. The Court, therefore, declines to exercise its discretion to consider the Demurrer. II.

To the extent, the current Demurrer challenges the first cause of action based on Vehicle Code section 11713.3 (Demurrer; 4:6-6:8.), Cross-Defendants fail to explain why they failed to raise this argument as part of the Prior Demurrer.

Discussion Defendant Picks Demurrer is substantively identical to Defendant Franciss Demurrer. In fact, it appears that Defendant Pick copied and pasted the majority of his Demurrer from Defendant Francis Demurrer, with small alterations at transition points and insignificant paragraphs added in certain places.

The demurrer papers also attach receipts from the Court’s court reservation system which show that a demurrer- without motion to strike was scheduled for 10/31/2018. Indeed, on October 31, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the demurrer. As such, the Court is unsure why Plaintiff is not in receipt of the moving papers. Regardless, the Court finds that the instant demurrer is improper as it is premature. The demurrer is directed at a purported answer filed by Plaintiff.

to be raised in the demurrer.

Jiau (BC590878) Defendant Jiau’s DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a) [emphasis added].)

Abusalaf’s DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

(BC612777) Defendant Perfection Pen, LLC’s DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Respondent: Plaintiffs L. and C. Velaso TENTATIVE RULING Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

Legal Standard and Discussion A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).)

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended UD COMPLAINT - UNLTD JURIS of EMPIRE DUNHILL, LLC FILED BY SHAREEB NAZ ADAIR * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a demurrer by defendant Shareen Adair to the first amended complaint. For the reasons set forth, the hearing on the demurrer is continued to 9:00 a.m. on September 15, 2021, so that Ms.

Under California Rules of Court Rule 3.1320(f), "[w]hen a demurrer is regularly called for hearing and one of the parties does not appear, the demurrer must be disposed of on the merits at the request of the party appearing unless for good cause the hearing is continued." Defendant did not request the demurrer be disposed on the merits. The court's ruling on the demurrer was not fully on the merits. Without any proof, Defendant asserts the demurrer was served by mail.

Demurrer The hearing on Defendants demurrer is continued for one month to Thursday, 7/27/23 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S27 of the Long Beach Courthouse. The demurrer is continued for two reasons. First, Defense Counsel declares the attorneys met and conferred via email. This is not permissible.

Notice of CVRI2104384 DOE 1 vs PEREZ Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling: The tentative rulings below are for all demurrers set for hearing today: Defendants’ Demurrer to the FAC on the ground of misjoinder of parties are OVERRULED. Defendant GRHCC’s Demurrer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 13th and 14th causes of action are OVERRULED; its Demurrer to 5 ,6 th th ,7 ,8 th th , 11th and 12 th causes of action are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Case Number: 22STLC03749 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 25 PROCEEDINGS : DEMURRER TO ANSWER MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Dana Messri Hassid RESP. PARTY : None DEMURRER (CCP § 430.10, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING : Plaintiff Dana Messri Hassids Demurrer is OVERRULED AS MOOT.

Under CCP § 472: “(a) A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer...” The demurrer accordingly is taken off calendar as moot.

Under CCP § 472: “(a) A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer...” The demurrer is should accordingly taken off calendar as moot.

Demurrer by Defendant Hollis Defendant Richard B. Hollis brings this demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. The Court refers to and incorporates by reference its ruling on the demurrer brought by Defendant Holonis, Inc., heard concurrent to this demurrer. The primary basis for seeking to hold Defendant Hollis liable is through the alter ego allegations. Plaintiff alleges the factors set forth in Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523.

Nature of Proceedings: Defendant Lucinda Sapikowski's Demurrer; Defendant Jose Ramirez' Demurrer; Defendant Luis Ramirez' Demurrer 1) Defendant Lucinda Sapikowski's Demurrer to the first (battery) and third (negligent infliction of emotional distress) causes of action in Plaintiff Marsha Kaplon's Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant Lucinda Sapikowski's Demurrer to the second (false imprisonment) cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend on or before March 23, 2009.

Requests for Judicial Notice Plaintiff’s RJN in Opposition to BONY’s Demurrer BANA’s RJN in Support of Demurrer Plaintiff’s RJN in Opposition to BANA’s Demurrer

Motion No. 1 Demurrer. Off calendar per moving party Andrew C. Carlton. Motion No. 2 Demurrer. Defendant Anna M. Carno’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint are ordered off calendar as moot. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 08/29/16, and the demurrer is addressed to a superseded pleading. Motion No. 3. Motion to Strike. The court orders the Defendant’s Motion to Strike off calendar as moot, on the same grounds as the demurrer. Moving party to give notice. Motion No. 4 Demurrer.

On the other hand, there are other, more serious procedural deficiencies with the demurrer. Plaintiff has not filed a separate notice of demurrer and demurrer, which should clearly list the separate grounds on which the plaintiff is demurring to the answer. Nor has plaintiff filed a points and authorities brief, with the legal authorities and arguments to support the plaintiff’s demurrer.

“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer. Because the Court is overruling the demurer on its merits, the Court need not reach Plaintiffs argument regarding actual service of the Demurrer. III. Conclusion The Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant did not file a Demurrer. As noted above, it filed only a Notice of Hearing on Demurrer and Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer. A Demurrer is a separate document. Of note, Defendant’s reply argues only that the points and authorities comply with the Rules of Court; this is insufficient, the Rules of Court require an actual Demurrer, which the City did not file.

DISCUSSION The demurrer is procedurally defective because Defendants have not complied with CCP section 430.41. Section 430.41 requires that, prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party must first meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading in an attempt to resolve the pleading issues without filing a demurrer.

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed , or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a) [emphasis added].)

Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

(KC068497) Cross-Defendants Elhawary and Socal Auto’s DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT and MOTION TO STRIKE Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

On August 30, 2018, Chase Metals filed a demurrer to the Benavides cross-complaint. On September 6, 2018, the hearing date was vacated because the action was reassigned from Department 12 to Department 34. No new hearing date was ever ordered for this demurrer. On October 4, 2018, Chase Metals filed a demurrer to the Ivester cross-complaint.

F47 Date: 11/18/22 Case #22CHCV00073 DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Demurrer filed on 10/7/22. MOVING PARTY: Defendants Lori Banks and A Thread Ahead, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff 5 th Street B.P., LLC NOTICE: ok Demurrer is to the entire complaint: 1. Breach of Contract RULING : The demurrer is placed off calendar as moot.

Tang (KC068400) Defendant Tang’s DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Respondent: Plaintiff Tian TENTATIVE RULING Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

Boyer’s DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. KC068322 Respondent: Plaintiff Dr. Taylor Bladh, O.D., Inc. TENTATIVE RULING See Analysis. Matter taken off-calender. Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall MEET AND CONFER IN PERSON OR BY TELEPHONE with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, July 31, 2013, line 9 - DEFENDANT LAURA MILLER's DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT. Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED, 5 days to answer. Defendant's Notice of Demurrer fails to comply with CRC 3.1110. The Demurrer and Points and Authorities in support of Demurrer disclose two separate grounds for demurrer to complaint for unlawful detainer.

Defendant CCAP Auto Lease Ltd. filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs Sojin Jeong and Casey Kim’s Complaint. Defendant Costa Arancione LLC joined the demurrer. The demurrer was unopposed. The demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the lease agreement Plaintiffs executed, is denied. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 114-118.) Service of the demurrer was timely.

Accordingly, the demurrer is not moot. Since Respondent has not taken the demurrer off calendar and the parties have not stipulated to the filing of an amended petition, the court rules on the demurrer. Analysis A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, and the grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. The demurrer admits all material facts properly pleaded. (CCP 430.30(a); Blank v.

F47 Date: 1/12/24 Case #23CHCV01549 DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Demurrer filed on 11/29/23. MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Santa Clarita (Doe 1) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Barajas NOTICE: ok Demurrer is to the entire complaint: 1. Negligence RULING : The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as set forth below.

Demurrer Plaintiff does not state the basis on which she demurs or to which pleading she demurs. Plaintiff also makes no legal argument in her demurrer. As such, the Court is unable to analyze and rule upon the merits of her demurrer. To the extent the instant demurrer is in response to the Courts November 12, 2021 order regarding Khakshooys demurrer, i.e., an amended complaint, Plaintiff is to refile the filing under the title of, First Amended Complaint.

Defendant responded with a Notice of Non-Opposition to Demurrer and Objection to Taking Demurrer Off Calendar on July 29, 2022. No reply was filed. II.

Demurrer a. Parties Positions Defendant, in pro per, demurs to the complaint. Defendant contends there are various reasons he has been unable to pay his rent, and indicates he is attempting to cure and pay all back rent as quickly as possible. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. It argues the demurrer fails to show the complaint, on its face, is defective, and therefore the demurrer should be overruled. b.

Under CCP § 472: “(a) A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after a demurrer is filed but before the demurrer is heard if the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer...” The demurrer and motion to strike is accordingly taken off calendar as moot. RULING: [No Opposition].

As of January 1, 2016, there are new procedural rules for the filing of a demurrer. “Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Wednesday, June 22, 2016, Line 14, DEFENDANT SIEGFRIED RUPPERT'S DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Defendant Siegfried Ruppert's demurrer to both of the causes of action alleged in the first amended complaint is overruled. The grounds advanced for this demurrer have already been adjudicated against Mr. Ruppert by the prior demurrer order or could have been and were not raised in the prior demurrer and per CCP 430.41(b) may not now be raised.

Furthermore, if a demurrer is sustained and the complaint is amended, no subsequent demurrer can be brought on any grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.41(b); Demurrers, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A)). The Court finds that Defendant’s prior demurrer was sustained in part which led to Plaintiff filing his First Amended Complaint herein.

1.DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT 2.MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT This is a demurrer and motion to strike in an elder abuse case. Both must be continued. Pursuant to CCP §430.41, before filing the demurrer the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

Cohen filed the demurrer on January 6, 2020. The filing of the demurrer is untimely. However, an untimely demurrer may be considered by the Court in its discretion. Jackson v Doe (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 742, 750. The Court exercises its discretion to review the substance of Cohen’s demurrer in light of the fact that Plaintiff has submitted an opposition addressing the substance of the demurrer. The motion to strike the demurrer of Cohen is denied.

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 430.41(a) requires: “Before filing a demurrer... the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.

Demurrer for Uncertainty: The demurrer is overruled. A demurrer for uncertainty generally is sustained only where the complaint is unfairly vague or so ambiguous or unintelligible that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., determine the issues to be admitted or denied. Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. That is not this complaint. 2. Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract: The demurrer is overruled.