On August 10, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Valenzuela Iii, Ernest Michael,
Valenzuela, Michelle,
and
Does 1 To 10, Inclusive,
Mczeal, Ada,
Moore, Julius,
for Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ORIGINAL
SCOTT L. MACDONALD, ESQ. (SBN 171865) 3;:
v
v
MACDONALD & CODY, LLP SLPERIGI’E
" '
i.
;. :5:
28 Executive Park, Third Floor (f?f‘I-‘5f‘
' "
Irvine, California 92614
(714) 831—1713;Fax: (714) 823-3229 ‘
-, .a. b, ..
i“
smacdonald(cDmacdonaldcody.com ~39 'v
1) ["23
ADA MCZEAL B? ~341-
Attorneys for Defendant ‘Jgifidpfijflflmfiém :3?!“
\OOONQU‘IAUJNH
La NTHA 35'.i..‘iflV, [“51“] :
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
aa‘nj
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
A8
MICHELLE VALENZUELA, a California Case N0.: CIVSBZZI7403
citizen; and ERNEST MICHAEL [Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction - Demand exceeds $25,000]
VALENZUELA III, a California citizen,
XV:
DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S REPLY
'
Plaintiffs, TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0
vs. DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S NOTICE
OF SPECIAL DEMURRER AND SPECIAL
DEMURRER T0 PLAINTIFFS’
.
ADA McZEAL, a California citizen; and COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
JULIUS MOORE, a California citizen; and POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
DOES l t0 10, inclusive,
DATE: February 1, 2023
Defendants. TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT: $24
Assigned for All Purgases lo:
Hon. Gilbert Ochoa, Dept. $24
NNNNNNNNNHt—Ip—d—IHy—Ar—dp—At—H
Complaint Filed: 08/10/2022
Trial Date: TBD
OONQUIAUJNF-‘OCWQQU‘I-PWNflo
COMES NOW Defendant ADA MCZEAL (hereinafter, “Defendant”) and submits her
Reply to Plaintiffs MICHELLE VALENZUELA (“M5, Valenzuela”) and ERNEST MICHAEL
VALENZUELA III (“ML Valenzuela”) (hereinafier, Ms. Valenzuela and Mr. Valenzuela are
referred t0 collectively as “Plaintiffs”) Opposition t0 Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint.
///
///
///
///
DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs’ Opposition fails to point to any allegations or facts in the Complaint t0 support the
causes of actions for Keeper Negligence and Premises Liability. Accordingly, Defendant requests
that the Court sustain the demurrer as the second and third causes of actions to Plaintiffs Complaint
\OOONQUWAUJNH
without leave to amend;
II. PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION FAILED TO SHOW PLAINTIFFS HAVE PLED
ALL REQUIRED ELEMENTS TO SATISFY THE CAUSES OF ACTIONS FOR
KEEPERS NEGLIGENCE AND PREMISES LIABILITY
Plaintiffs’ Opposition still fails to provide sufficient facts to satisfy the elements for Keepers
Negligence and Premises Liability. Plaintiffs’ Opposition alleges that they have pled sufficient facts
in the Complaint to support the causes of actions of Keepers Negligence and Premises Liability.
This isfalse.
As presented in Defendant’s Demurrer, Code of Civil Procedure §425.10 provides, “A
complaint. .shall contain the following: (1)
. A statement ofthe facts constituting the cause ofaction,
in ordinary and concise language...” See, Blondeau v. Snydee (1892) 95 Ca]. 521, 523; Jackson v.
Bank ofAmerica (1 986) 188 Cal.App.3d 37S, 388.) “Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency
NNNNNNNNNy—Ip—ur—ar—Ay—Ht—AHr—p—n
0f a complaint, the plaintiff must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every
element ofeach cause 0f action. If the complaint fails to plead, or if the defendant negates, any
OOQO\LAJ>WNw—O\OOOQO\MhWNi—‘O
essential element of a particular cause of action [the] court should sustain [the] demurrer.”
’
Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.
“Because only factual allegations are considered on demurrer, [couns] must disregard any
contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint” in considering a
demurrer. See McBride v. Smith (2018) 18 Cal. App. 5th 1160. Plaintiffs cannot merely assert
vague conclusions, but must allege facts to sufficiently support each element ofthe cause ofaction.
///
///
///
DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL DEMURRER T0 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
January 25, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 10, 2022
Category
Other PI/PD/WD Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ORIGINAL SCOTT L. MACDONALD, ESQ. (SBN 171865) 3;: v v MACDONALD & CODY, LLP SLPERIGI’E " ' i. ;. :5: 28 Executive Park, Third Floor (f?f‘I-‘5f‘ ' " Irvine, California 92614 (714) 831—1713;Fax: (714) 823-3229 ‘ -, .a. b, .. i“ smacdonald(cDmacdonaldcody.com ~39 'v 1) ["23 ADA MCZEAL B? ~341- Attorneys for Defendant ‘Jgifidpfijflflmfiém :3?!“ \OOONQU‘IAUJNH La NTHA 35'.i..‘iflV, [“51“] : SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA aa‘nj COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO A8 MICHELLE VALENZUELA, a California Case N0.: CIVSBZZI7403 citizen; and ERNEST MICHAEL [Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction - Demand exceeds $25,000] VALENZUELA III, a California citizen, XV: DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S REPLY ' Plaintiffs, TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION T0 vs. DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S NOTICE OF SPECIAL DEMURRER AND SPECIAL DEMURRER T0 PLAINTIFFS’ . ADA McZEAL, a California citizen; and COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF JULIUS MOORE, a California citizen; and POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DOES l t0 10, inclusive, DATE: February 1, 2023 Defendants. TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT: $24 Assigned for All Purgases lo: Hon. Gilbert Ochoa, Dept. $24 NNNNNNNNNHt—Ip—d—IHy—Ar—dp—At—H Complaint Filed: 08/10/2022 Trial Date: TBD OONQUIAUJNF-‘OCWQQU‘I-PWNflo COMES NOW Defendant ADA MCZEAL (hereinafter, “Defendant”) and submits her Reply to Plaintiffs MICHELLE VALENZUELA (“M5, Valenzuela”) and ERNEST MICHAEL VALENZUELA III (“ML Valenzuela”) (hereinafier, Ms. Valenzuela and Mr. Valenzuela are referred t0 collectively as “Plaintiffs”) Opposition t0 Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint. /// /// /// /// DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ Opposition fails to point to any allegations or facts in the Complaint t0 support the causes of actions for Keeper Negligence and Premises Liability. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court sustain the demurrer as the second and third causes of actions to Plaintiffs Complaint \OOONQUWAUJNH without leave to amend; II. PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION FAILED TO SHOW PLAINTIFFS HAVE PLED ALL REQUIRED ELEMENTS TO SATISFY THE CAUSES OF ACTIONS FOR KEEPERS NEGLIGENCE AND PREMISES LIABILITY Plaintiffs’ Opposition still fails to provide sufficient facts to satisfy the elements for Keepers Negligence and Premises Liability. Plaintiffs’ Opposition alleges that they have pled sufficient facts in the Complaint to support the causes of actions of Keepers Negligence and Premises Liability. This isfalse. As presented in Defendant’s Demurrer, Code of Civil Procedure §425.10 provides, “A complaint. .shall contain the following: (1) . A statement ofthe facts constituting the cause ofaction, in ordinary and concise language...” See, Blondeau v. Snydee (1892) 95 Ca]. 521, 523; Jackson v. Bank ofAmerica (1 986) 188 Cal.App.3d 37S, 388.) “Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency NNNNNNNNNy—Ip—ur—ar—Ay—Ht—AHr—p—n 0f a complaint, the plaintiff must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element ofeach cause 0f action. If the complaint fails to plead, or if the defendant negates, any OOQO\LAJ>WNw—O\OOOQO\MhWNi—‘O essential element of a particular cause of action [the] court should sustain [the] demurrer.” ’ Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43. “Because only factual allegations are considered on demurrer, [couns] must disregard any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint” in considering a demurrer. See McBride v. Smith (2018) 18 Cal. App. 5th 1160. Plaintiffs cannot merely assert vague conclusions, but must allege facts to sufficiently support each element ofthe cause ofaction. /// /// /// DEFENDANT ADA MCZEAL’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL DEMURRER T0 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT