Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
In California, a demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings by raising issues of law, not fact, regarding their form or content. Demurrers can only challenge defects appearing on the face of the pleading or matters that are judicially noticeable. Grounds for a demurrer include lack of jurisdiction, lack of legal capacity to sue, another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action, a defect or misjoinder of parties, failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, uncertainty, or, if the action is found on a contract, failure to specify if the contract is written, oral, or implied by conduct. The court must give effect to specific factual allegations while determining the validity of the demurrer. Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party must meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading to discuss possible resolutions to the objections. A demurrer must be filed within thirty days of being served with the summons and complaint.
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. 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.
A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”).
A demurrer is brought under the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 430.10 [grounds], § 430.30 [as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken], and § 430.50(a) [can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within]. Specifically, a demurrer may be brought per CCP § 430.10(e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. Per CCP §430.10(a) a demurrer may be brought where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Furthermore, demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (CCP § 430.10(f).)
Grounds for a demurrer include lack of jurisdiction, lack of legal capacity to sue, another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action, a defect or misjoinder of parties, failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, uncertainty, or, if the action is found on a contract, failure to specify if the contract is written, oral, or implied by conduct. (CCP § 430.10(a)-(g).)
In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)
And, if the facts pled in the complaint are inconsistent with facts which are incorporated by reference from exhibits attached to the complaint, the facts in the incorporated exhibits control. Further, irrespective of the name or label given to a cause of action by the plaintiff, a general demurrer must be overruled if the facts as pled in the body of the complaint state some valid claim for relief. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36; CCP § 92(c).)
Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)
CCP § 430.41 requires that “[b]efore 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.” (CCP § 430.41(a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (CCP § 430.41(a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (CCP § 430.41(a)(3).)
CCP § 430.40(a) requires a defendant to file a demurrer not more than thirty days after being served with the summons and complaint.
Motion No. 1: Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages by Defendant Jacob Wintner (Demurrer), filed on 7-1-19, is CONTINUED to October 8, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.
KEATING V. LAGUNA HILLS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER
30-2018-00987820-CU-PO-CJC
Sep 24, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
ANTONIO MAYORGA, ET AL. VS 21007 VICTOR OWNER, LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
23TRCV00330
Jul 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Hearing on the demurrer is therefore ordered off calendar.
JUDY ANTONETTE V. CLIFF VIEW TERRACE, INC.
15CV04595
Jul 11, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
LUCY HOLDINGS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KRUPE INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
21CHCV00316
Jun 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
UQUILLAS V. UQUILLAS, ET AL.
FCS049532
Sep 06, 2018
Solano County, CA
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.)
CYNTHIA REKAR VS. EDWARD SCHEINGOLD
C23-01721
Feb 02, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
The demurrer is therefore overruled.
GLORIA DOURTH VS NANCY LEE, ET AL.
19STCV34510
Jan 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CATHERINE CLAY, ET AL. VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.
19STCV12579
Jul 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
TEN30 STUDIOS, INC., ET AL. VS DAVID CHECKOR, ET AL.
19STCV14537
Nov 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
COALITION FOR A SCENIC LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
22STCP03909
Jun 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer: WAIVED.
MEHRAN HAGHANI, ET AL. VS ATLANTIC PARK PLAZA, LLC, ET AL.
21STCV12559
Aug 25, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. WOODIN
FCS051444
Mar 20, 2019
Solano County, CA
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.
RICHARD J. KROOP, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING
EC066112
May 26, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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).)
22STLC05747
Nov 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, VS JESSE PIMENTEL, ET AL.
20STLC01995
Jun 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JUANA MUTUL VS RODOLFO DIMAS
18STLC08420
Aug 17, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JUANA MUTUL VS RODOLFO DIMAS
18STLC08420
Aug 15, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo
Los Angeles County, CA
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.”
HAACKE VS BANNER BANK
MCC2000862
Dec 22, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
LENIZ R BATRES VS MELINDA TERRY ET AL
BC600021
Dec 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
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.
22STLC07061
Jan 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
22SMCV00944
Nov 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JOSEPH VINCENT CASTAGNA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
18STCV06586
Apr 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
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.
JOHN CHUNG ET AL VS VISTA HOSPITALITY INC ET AL
BC680229
Jun 14, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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....”
SALIM A SKAF VS CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
EC067754
Jun 15, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Foreclosure
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.
NELI LIMAS ROSALES VS SILVIA MALDONADO
KC068784
Jan 11, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ANDREW S. PARK ET AL VS. R.C. CHRONICLE BUILDING L.P. ET AL
CGC10504556
Apr 07, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
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.
PERENNIAL HOLISTIC WELLNESS VS BRETT VAPNEK ET AL
EC065436
Sep 30, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BI QIN CHENG VS XIAO QING YANG ET. AL.
EC066372
Jun 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
WAYNE TUSTIN VS BANK OF AMERICA ET AL
1402435
Mar 14, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
ANNETTE MATRISCIANO ET AL VS JEFFREY ARLINGTON
1402317
Jul 26, 2012
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
JENNIFER TURCIOS VS. RANDALL HARPER
37-2017-00022759-CU-PA-CTL
Feb 15, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
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.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS JESUS BARAJAS, JR.
17STLC02589
Jun 11, 2018
Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
37-2023-00013134-CU-WM-CTL
Jun 30, 2023
San Diego County, CA
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).)
2016-00837584 Underwood vs. Spring Valley Post Acute LLC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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).)
UNDERWOOD VS. SPRING VALLEY POST ACUTE LLC
30-2016-00837584-CU-PO-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
JULIAN EARL MELENDREZ VS RAMON SANCHEZ, ET AL.
21STCV40343
Mar 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MAGNOLIA LOPEZ, ET AL. VS LONG BEACH HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.
23LBCV00891
Jan 16, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HANNA V. RUIZ
16CECG03534
May 08, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
BRAGGS VS. THOMPSON
MSC20-00386
Mar 01, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
COMAN, LLC VS. HANSEN FREIGHTLINES, INC.
VC066076
Apr 13, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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
CERVENKA VS EBERT
CVSW2203800
Dec 15, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
BOGGS EQUIPMENT & ENGINEERING, INC VS RIVER PARTNERS
19CV03446
May 27, 2020
Butte County, CA
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.
NOVA SONIC INC. VS PRESTIGE ELECTRONIC IMPORTS INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV37208
Apr 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Collections
Collections
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.
GALVEZ TRUCKING, INC. VS HERRERA BROS TRUCKING CORP
20LBCV00399
Apr 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION
19STCV35294
Feb 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
MARIBEL CHAIREZ VS LIFOAM INDUSTRIES INC ET AL
BC629694
Nov 28, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
ROXANA ELIZABETH GUERRA ET AL VS BUBBLES BAKERIES INC ET AL
BC563798
Nov 28, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
GREENKRAFT V GEMAYEL
30-2018-00979579
Aug 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
JAMAL CAUSEY VS 5 BREADS FISH
BC644368
May 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
23STLC00335
Mar 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALYSIA RIVERS VS. EMMA SHARIF
TC028876
Dec 07, 2017
Brian S. Currey or Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
REINALDO PIEDRA VS LONG BEACH ANIMAL CARE SERVICES/ANIMAL CONTROL, ET AL.
22STCV03072
Apr 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HUNTINGTON GLAZING INC VS CAL-CITY CONSTRUCTION INC
17STLC03622
Aug 29, 2018
Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JAMES A. KAY, JR., ET AL. VS LEVI LESCHES, ET AL.
23STCV01142
Jun 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CYNTHIA SADA VS GLORIA FLOWERS ET AL
BC695998
Feb 21, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
to be raised in the demurrer.
XIANFENG SUN VS. LOVEVITE LLC, ET AL
21-CIV-04018
Dec 09, 2022
HONORABLE V. RAYMOND SWOPE
San Mateo County, CA
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.
CARLOS JOSE REYES VS AMY JIAU
BC590878
Mar 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
“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].)
MEREDITH BLAKE VS JEREMIAH MICHAEL LANGER
19SMCV01650
May 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BASSAM ABUZALAF VS RAFIQ R. ABUZALAF
KC068633
Dec 06, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
(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.
LOUIS VELASCO VS THE VAPORS ET AL
BC612777
Dec 12, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
22STLC07014
Mar 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
EMPIRE DUNHILL, LLC VS ICANDY
MSN19-2155
Aug 18, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
JENNIFER TURCIOS VS. RANDALL HARPER
37-2017-00022759-CU-PA-CTL
Feb 08, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
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.
TODD BERTRANG, ET AL. VS IVORY HOLDINGS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV42736
Jun 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DOE 1 VS PEREZ
CVRI2104384
May 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
DANA MESSRI HASSID VS VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC
22STLC03749
Aug 24, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ADRINEH ASATOURIAN VS. ZELDA ABERIAN
EC067898
May 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ERIK CHAN VS. EFX, INC.
EC066776
Nov 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
NODO DIGITAL LLC VS HOLONIS INC
37-2020-00011287-CU-BC-CTL
Oct 29, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
MARSHA KAPLON VS SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL INC ET AL
1304709
Mar 09, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
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
NEUFELD V BONY ET AL.
18CV00969
Sep 17, 2018
Santa Cruz County, CA
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.
HERNAN OROZCO VS. ELIKEN HODANU / STAYED
18CECG00965
Jul 23, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
“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.
VENUS HOLLEMAN VS SHARMEL L LAIRD GUYTON
BC664132
Oct 11, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
23STCV13138
Jul 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MEPCO SERVICES, INC. VS. CARNO & CARLTON, LLP
30-2016-00837841-CU-BC-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
CAROLE SUKMAN VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.
19STCV07848
Aug 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
RAUL RODRIGUEZ VS JOSE PEREZ ET AL
BC616910
May 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
“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].)
JANINE M YODER VS MWANZO M MALLARD, ET AL.
20STCV03997
May 05, 2021
Timothy Lee Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HAOUSSATOU BARRY VS. ANNA SHAFIZADEH
MSC18-02135
Aug 21, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
(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.
AMIR ELHAWARY VS MAGED SHOMAN
KC068497
Sep 19, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
CHASE METALS INC VS MARK A BENAVIDES
BC709355
Dec 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
5TH STREET B.P., LLC VS LORI BANKS, ET AL.
22CHCV00073
Nov 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MI TIAN VS LI TANG
KC068400
Sep 12, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
KENNETH J. BOYER VS DR. TAYLOR W. BLADH
KC067342
Oct 03, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
TIMOTHY DAVID DICKISON DBA GALLERY DRYWALL GROUP, INC VS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE LICENSE BOARD (CSLB)
21STCP00718
Jun 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
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.
THEODOR V HEYERMANN VS. LAURA D MILLER ET AL
CUD13645849
Jul 31, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
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.
JEONG, ET AL. V. COSTA ARANCIONE, LLC, ET AL.
30-2019-01070144
Oct 18, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
LUIS BARAJAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.
23CHCV01549
Jan 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HURYA YEMANE VS DR. KHAKSHOOY & DR. VAHEDI DENTAL INC
21STCV27842
Dec 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ANTHONY SWORD VS KELLIE MADISON
22STLC00053
Aug 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
23LBCV01036
Sep 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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].
RAMONA MENDOZA VS. B.V. GENERAL, INC.
EC065632
Apr 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JAIME FARIAS VS GUILERMO CUERVO RAMIREZ ET AL
BC656254
Sep 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
PATRICIA BUSE VS. SIEGFRIED J.W. RUPPERT
CGC16550600
Jun 22, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
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.
PARK VS. MEMORIALCARE HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE SERVICES
30-2016-00891237-CU-PO-CJC
Mar 24, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
SHAW, NOLAN VS CRABTREE, ROBERT
CV-21-002353
Jan 25, 2024
Stanislaus County, CA
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.
EILENE KRAKOVER VS ECS BUILDERS GROUP INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , ET AL.
19VECV01525
Jul 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
COURTNEY MCGRAW VS. ALL NATION SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
TC028434
Mar 22, 2017
Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
VARGAS -V- VARGAS ET AL PRINT
CIVSB2223550
May 01, 2023
San Bernardino County, CA
This demurrer is moot because it relates to Plaintiff’s initially filed complaint and Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint after the filing of this demurrer. Defendant Doud Associates, Inc.’s demurrer is titled as a demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. However, the words “first amended” are not found anywhere else within the demurring papers other than the title of the document served in the proof of service.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON VS DOUD ASSOCIATES INC., ET AL.
20STCV15682
Nov 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.