On January 18, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Jordan, Ronnie D,
and
Does 1-50,
Mowbray, Richard John,
Mowbray, Robin,
Mowbray Waterman Property, Llc,
The Original Mowbray'S Tree Service, Incorporated,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
F I LE D
1 Kenneth J. Catanzarite (SBN 113750) s‘é'BEflWSEEKL gégfikgfifig“
kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com
FONTANA DISTRICT
2 Brandon Ev Woodward (SBN 284621) __
bwoodward@catanzarite.com JUL 8 2022
3 CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
2331 West Lincoln Avenue BY
4 Anaheim, California 92801 LAURA M'ARRXLE . onoZZco. DEpUTY
Tel: (714) 520_5544
5 Fax: (714) 520—0680
6 Attorneys for Defendant
and Movant
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO, FONTANA COURTHOUSE
O
00
‘10? 1O MOWBRAY WATERMAN PROPERTY, Case No. LLTVA2201963
LLC, a California Limited Liability
I O
m 1 1 Company, Assigned for A11 Purposes t0
l0 Commissioner Robert Driessen
AVENUE
9280
3 12 Plaintiff, Dept. F-6
CORPORATaON
E? 13 v. REPLYIN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER T0
é
UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT.
LINCOLN
LL
14 RONNIE D. JORDAN, an individual;
DATE: July 15, 2022
CALtFORNIA
‘
LAW
15 Defendant. TIME: 8:00 a.m.
g DEPT: F-6
WEST
g 1 6
CATANZARITE
l 8
Movant and defendant Ronnie D. Jordan (“Movant”) respectfully submits his Reply in
ANAHEIM,
L0 17
233
Q
18 suppon ofhis Demurrer to plaintiffMowbray Waterman Property, LLC’S (“Plaintiff") unlawful
r:
19 detainer complaint (“UD”) and in response to Plaintiff‘s late-filed Opposition t0 the Demurrer
fl
*—
“PrOpCHy’U.
20 regarding real property located at 1515 Lucas Ln., Redlands, California 92347 (the
21 Specifically, Plaintiff ignores and thus concedes the Demurrer’s arguments and authority
22 requiring abatement 0f the UD due to the pending First—Action (defined terms as set out in
23 Movant’s Demurrer Memorandum) based on the same transaction and between these same
24 panies. The concession makes apparent Plaintiff s attempt t0 circumvent Movant’s rights to the
25 use, enjoyment and title to the Property and to be heard 0n his First-Action Claims 7 (Specific
26 performance) &8 (Quiet title) both 0f which penain t0 the Propeny. Indeed, the UD is retaliation
27 for the First-Action and t0 prejudice Movant as Plaintiff knows UDs are typically heard faster
28 than unlimited civil cases. Accordingly, the Demurrer should be sustained.
Reply ISO Demurrer
Wd 3I3ZI ZZOZISOILO ST J0 Z iafigd BIIS'OZ€ (606) ”(9:1 “10319191'IW@BIISOZSSOG 301 SBSOSGSVHI ”(Pd SdHINd A’DGB ”“015
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. THE OPPOSITION IS PROCEDURALLY LATE.
filed with the court at
A11 opposition papers must be served 0n the demurring party and
least nine (9) court—days before the hearing. _S§§ Code ofCivil Procedure
(“CCP”), §1005(b). A
opposition. California Rules ofCourt
court has the discretion t0 refuse to consider a late filed §§_e_
(“CRC”), 3.1300(d).
for July 15, 2022. Thus, any Opposition t0 the
Here, the hearing on the Demun‘er is set
Demurrer was due t0 be filed and served July 1, 2022 at the latest, which was 9-c0un-days before
the Opposition was filed and served July 5, 2022, not
the hearing on the Demurrer. However,
As such, the Opposition procedurally late, prejudicing Movant, and the
July 1“ as required. is
520-0680
I Coun should refuse to consider it.
t0 amend.
Accordingly, the Demurrer should be sustained without leave
AVENUE
9280
4)
CORPORATION
I
<7
II. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE T0 ADDRESS THE DEMURRER’S ABATEMENT
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY CONCEDES THEIR VALIDITY.
FAX:
LINCOLN
CALIFORNIA
0
LAW
and authorities raised in briefs is considered a concession and
Failure t0 respond to points
WEST
520-5544
waiver to their merit. S_ec_: Shoemaker v. County ofLos Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 61 8, 633
l
ofSan Diego (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 952, 968 (“If
CATANZARITE
$9, Cox Cable San Diego, City
ANAHEIM,
fn.17; Inc, v.
233 4)
t an argument is not presented, it will not be considered”)
(7
Here, the Movant provided argument and authority for either dismissal 0r abatement of
TEL:
2022 pursuant to CCP, §430.10(c).
the 'UD due to the pending First-Action filed January 18,
to address the Demurrer’s argumants 0r authorities
(Demurrer pp.5—6.) However, Plaintiff failed
the issue by asserting the
concerning CCP, §430.10(c). Instead, Plaintiffattempts to obfuscate
(Opposition pp.9-1 1.) Clearly, Movant
Court cannot judicially notice factual assertions as true.
t0 judicially notice the First—Action
Complaint’s allegations as true as the
does not seek the Court
to judicially notice the First—Action
Requeslfbr Judicial Notice merely seeks the Court
abatement by comparing the earlier filed
Complaint for the purpose ofshowing the basis for
grew out 0f the same transactions and is between the same parties as
First-Action as t0 whether it
the purpose 0f demurrer under CCP, §430.10(c) and
those in the UD before this Court, which is
1.
Renlv ISO Demurrer
BTIS'OZS (606) ”(Vi “10319101“?@9119028606 301 68906687111 5X91 SdHlNd M4398 3W°Jd
Wd 81521 ZZOZIGOILO ST £0 S iafied
Preview
F I LE D 1 Kenneth J. Catanzarite (SBN 113750) s‘é'BEflWSEEKL gégfikgfifig“ kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com FONTANA DISTRICT 2 Brandon Ev Woodward (SBN 284621) __ bwoodward@catanzarite.com JUL 8 2022 3 CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION 2331 West Lincoln Avenue BY 4 Anaheim, California 92801 LAURA M'ARRXLE . onoZZco. DEpUTY Tel: (714) 520_5544 5 Fax: (714) 520—0680 6 Attorneys for Defendant and Movant 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO, FONTANA COURTHOUSE O 00 ‘10? 1O MOWBRAY WATERMAN PROPERTY, Case No. LLTVA2201963 LLC, a California Limited Liability I O m 1 1 Company, Assigned for A11 Purposes t0 l0 Commissioner Robert Driessen AVENUE 9280 3 12 Plaintiff, Dept. F-6 CORPORATaON E? 13 v. REPLYIN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER T0 é UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT. LINCOLN LL 14 RONNIE D. JORDAN, an individual; DATE: July 15, 2022 CALtFORNIA ‘ LAW 15 Defendant. TIME: 8:00 a.m. g DEPT: F-6 WEST g 1 6 CATANZARITE l 8 Movant and defendant Ronnie D. Jordan (“Movant”) respectfully submits his Reply in ANAHEIM, L0 17 233 Q 18 suppon ofhis Demurrer to plaintiffMowbray Waterman Property, LLC’S (“Plaintiff") unlawful r: 19 detainer complaint (“UD”) and in response to Plaintiff‘s late-filed Opposition t0 the Demurrer fl *— “PrOpCHy’U. 20 regarding real property located at 1515 Lucas Ln., Redlands, California 92347 (the 21 Specifically, Plaintiff ignores and thus concedes the Demurrer’s arguments and authority 22 requiring abatement 0f the UD due to the pending First—Action (defined terms as set out in 23 Movant’s Demurrer Memorandum) based on the same transaction and between these same 24 panies. The concession makes apparent Plaintiff s attempt t0 circumvent Movant’s rights to the 25 use, enjoyment and title to the Property and to be heard 0n his First-Action Claims 7 (Specific 26 performance) &8 (Quiet title) both 0f which penain t0 the Propeny. Indeed, the UD is retaliation 27 for the First-Action and t0 prejudice Movant as Plaintiff knows UDs are typically heard faster 28 than unlimited civil cases. Accordingly, the Demurrer should be sustained. Reply ISO Demurrer Wd 3I3ZI ZZOZISOILO ST J0 Z iafigd BIIS'OZ€ (606) ”(9:1 “10319191'IW@BIISOZSSOG 301 SBSOSGSVHI ”(Pd SdHINd A’DGB ”“015 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. THE OPPOSITION IS PROCEDURALLY LATE. filed with the court at A11 opposition papers must be served 0n the demurring party and least nine (9) court—days before the hearing. _S§§ Code ofCivil Procedure (“CCP”), §1005(b). A opposition. California Rules ofCourt court has the discretion t0 refuse to consider a late filed §§_e_ (“CRC”), 3.1300(d). for July 15, 2022. Thus, any Opposition t0 the Here, the hearing on the Demun‘er is set Demurrer was due t0 be filed and served July 1, 2022 at the latest, which was 9-c0un-days before the Opposition was filed and served July 5, 2022, not the hearing on the Demurrer. However, As such, the Opposition procedurally late, prejudicing Movant, and the July 1“ as required. is 520-0680 I Coun should refuse to consider it. t0 amend. Accordingly, the Demurrer should be sustained without leave AVENUE 9280 4) CORPORATION I <7 II. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE T0 ADDRESS THE DEMURRER’S ABATEMENT ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY CONCEDES THEIR VALIDITY. FAX: LINCOLN CALIFORNIA 0 LAW and authorities raised in briefs is considered a concession and Failure t0 respond to points WEST 520-5544 waiver to their merit. S_ec_: Shoemaker v. County ofLos Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 61 8, 633 l ofSan Diego (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 952, 968 (“If CATANZARITE $9, Cox Cable San Diego, City ANAHEIM, fn.17; Inc, v. 233 4) t an argument is not presented, it will not be considered”) (7 Here, the Movant provided argument and authority for either dismissal 0r abatement of TEL: 2022 pursuant to CCP, §430.10(c). the 'UD due to the pending First-Action filed January 18, to address the Demurrer’s argumants 0r authorities (Demurrer pp.5—6.) However, Plaintiff failed the issue by asserting the concerning CCP, §430.10(c). Instead, Plaintiffattempts to obfuscate (Opposition pp.9-1 1.) Clearly, Movant Court cannot judicially notice factual assertions as true. t0 judicially notice the First—Action Complaint’s allegations as true as the does not seek the Court to judicially notice the First—Action Requeslfbr Judicial Notice merely seeks the Court abatement by comparing the earlier filed Complaint for the purpose ofshowing the basis for grew out 0f the same transactions and is between the same parties as First-Action as t0 whether it the purpose 0f demurrer under CCP, §430.10(c) and those in the UD before this Court, which is 1. Renlv ISO Demurrer BTIS'OZS (606) ”(Vi “10319101“?@9119028606 301 68906687111 5X91 SdHlNd M4398 3W°Jd Wd 81521 ZZOZIGOILO ST £0 S iafied