Document for GALACTIC BRANDS IP, LLC ET AL VS. CENTRAL COAST AG DISTRIBUTION, LLC ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                4
     SHANEN R. PROUT (SBN 236137)
     shanen@wgcounsel.com
     WEINBERG GONSER LLP                                       San Francisco County Superior Court
     10866 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650                                     DEC 13 2023
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Telephone: (424) 239-2850
     Facsimile: (424) 238-3060
                                                               BY:
                                                                     CLERK
                                                                              gi F THE COURT
                                                                             NitsMAS
                                                                                    Deputy Clerk
                                                                                                     WS




     Attorneys for Plaintiffs
     GALACTIC BRANDS IP, LLC and GOLD DROP HOLDINGS, INC.

                          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
              FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO—CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE
10                                     UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ll

12    GALACTIC BRANDS IP, LLC; GOLD DROP | Case No. CGC-23-605540
      HOLDINGS, INC.
13                                         [PROPOSED] ORDERRE: DEFENDANT
                    Plaintiffs.            CENTRAL COAST AGRICULTURE’S (1)
14                                         DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
                                           AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED
15
                                           COMPLAINT, AND (3) DEFENDANT
16                                         CENTRAL COAST AG DISTRIBUTION,
      CENTRAL COAST AG DISTRIBUTION,       LLC’S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT
17    LLC; CENTRAL COAST AGRICULTURE,      CENTRAL COAST AGRICULTURE’S
      INC.; and, DOES 1-25, inclusive,     AMENDED DEMURRERS AND MOTION
18                                         TO STRIKE
                    Defendants.
19
                                           Case filed: 04-03-2023
20                                                 Trial: none set

21

22

23

24
25

26

27

28
                                         [PROPOSED] ORDER
The Court has considered the following filings with the Court: Defendant Central Coast

     Agriculture’s (1) Demurrer to Amended Complaint and (2) Motion to Strike Amended Complaint,

     and (3) Defendant Central Coast Ag Distribution, LLC’s Joinder to Defendant Central Coast
     Agriculture’s Amended Demurrers and Motion to Strike. The Court has also considered plaintiffs

     Galactic Brands IP, LLC and Gold Drop Holdings, Inc.’s oppositions thereto, and Defendants’

     reply briefs, and all other pleadings and papers on file in the above-captioned case, and based

     thereon, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

              1     Defendant Central Coast Ag Distribution, LLC’s Joinder to Defendant Central

                    Coast Agriculture’s Amended Demurrers and Motion To Strike. The joinder to the
10                  procedurally improper “amended demurrers” and motion to strike is off calendar.
11                  Defendant Central Coast Agriculture, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Amended Complaint.
12                  Defendant’s motion to strike is off calendar. Defendant should have calendared this
13                  motion to strike concurrently with the demurrer to the FAC that was heard on
14                  8/9/23. (CCP 435(b)(1),(3), and (d); CRC 3.1322(b).)
15                  Defendant Central Coast Agriculture, Inc. Demurrer to Amended Complaint.
16                  Defendant’s “amended demurrers” are off calendar. They are untimely and
17                  procedurally improper. Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) on
18                  6/5/23. On 8/9/23, the court heard defendant's demurrers to that pleading and issued
19                  an order on 8/10/23. The court sustained without leave to amend as to cause of
20                  action 1 and overruled as to causes of action 2-4. Per CRC 3.1320(g) and (j),
21                  defendant should have filed an answer to the FAC within 10 days of notice of entry
22                  of that order. There was nothing for plaintiff to amend and plaintiff never filed a
23                  second amended complaint. But instead of complying with the code and rules,
24                  defendant filed these “amended demurrers” and a motion to strike the FAC. There
25                  is no basis for defendant to be filing serial or piecemeal demurrers to the FAC. In
26                  fact, CCP 430.41(b) provides that a party should not be raising new arguments to
27                  an amended complaint that could have been raised to a prior version of the
28                                                    1
                                            [PROPOSED] ORDER
complaint. Defendant's conduct is even more violative of this principle because

                   plaintiff never amended the FAC. Defendant to answer by December 20, 2023




              IT IS SO ORDERED.



     DATED:        ¢2/i3/23                                bby
                                                  Hon.
                                                             Sep
                                                  Judge of the   aR Court
                                                               HARD ULM
                                                                 uperior      o:ER California

10

11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23
24

25

26

27
28
                                                    2
                                           [PROPOSED] ORDER