Preview
Bowen Hatch (259631)
Therega F l L E D
SUPERIOR COURT or: CALIFORNIA
BOWEN HATCH LAW, PC COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARomo
1902 Wright Place, Suite 200 SAN BERNAano msmcr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
DEC 2 2 2021
Tel: 760-539-7603
Fax: 760-539-9966 I .
Theresa@bowenhatchlaw.com 9V
W555 gab Deputy .'
\OOONGU‘I#UJN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
ABDIFATAH MOHAMED ABDI, CASE NO.: CIVSB 2123823
BY FAX
11
individually;
12 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER
13 ‘
vs. Complaint Filed: August 16, 2021
14
Dept.: S-25
15
KALgFREIGHT, INC., a corporation; PRO Judge: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
TEC,] INC., a corporation; KADER ISMAIL Trial Date: Not Set
16 KALIF, individually; and DOES 1-20,
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
inclusive,
17
Defendants
18
19
20
21
I. LEGAL ANALYSIS
22
A. Defendants’ Demurrer Is Untimely
23
Defendant Kal Freight was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint on September 21, 2021. (See Ex.
24
1, Hatch Decl. 1] 2) Defendant Pro Tec was served with Plaintiff's Complaint on September 21, 2021.
25
(See Ex. 2, Hatch Decl. 1] 3) Defendant Kalif was served with Plaintifl’s Complaint on September 24,
26
2021. (See Ex. 3, Hatch Decl. 1] 4)
27
28
Opposition to Demurrer
A defendant can demur within the same period of time it has to answer the complaint—i.e., 30
extended by stipulation or court order. CCP § 430.40(a). Here, there
was no
days after service, unless
stipulation or court order to extend the time period within which to file a demurrer. (Hatch Decl. 1] 5)
Thus, any demurrer as to Kal Freight, Inc. and Pro Tec, Inc. was due on October 21, 2021. Any demurrer
as to Kalif was due on October 24, 2021. However, Defendants’ demurrer was not
filed until November
\OWVO\MAMN
30, 2021. (See Register of Actions and Proof of Service)
CCP section 430.41(a)(2) states: “The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the
date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days
prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an
automatic
on or
30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, bx filing and serving,
10
11
before? the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury
12
that a :good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties
13
could ?ot meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the responsive pleading
14
was pripviously due, and the demurring pany shall not be subject to default during the period of the
15
extensiZon. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.”
l6
(emph;asis added)
17 Plaintifi‘ the “Declaration of Steven B. Heath to
:0n October 29, 2021, Defendants served on
18 Pro Tec Inc, and Kader Ismail Kalif’s Responsive Pleading to
Extend Defendants Kal Freight lnc.,
19 Mohamed Abdi’s Complaint.”
Plaintiff Adbifatah
20 CCP section 430.41(a)(2), Defendants’ declaration was required to be filed and
E‘Pursuant to
21
servediby the date the demurrer was due: October 21 , 2021 for Kal Freight and Pro Tec and October 24,
22 2021 fat Kader Kalif. However, Defendants did not serve Mr. Heath’s declaration until October 29, 2021
23 — five days afier a responsive pleading was due for Defendant Kalif and eight days afier a responsive
24 pleading was due for Defendants Kal Freight and Pro Tec. (Hatch Decl. 1} 6) Moreover, Defendants did
25 not Mr. Heath’s declaration until November 1, 2021. (See Register of Actions)
filei
26 Therefore, the Declaration of Mr. Heath did not grant an automatic 30-day extension of the time
27 within which to file a responsive pleading Pursuant to CCP section 430.4l(a)(2), and this demurrer is
28 under penalty of perjury that a good
untimely. Moreover, Mr. Heath’s declaration did not “stat[e]
-2-
Opposition to Demurrer
Preview
Bowen Hatch (259631) Therega F l L E D SUPERIOR COURT or: CALIFORNIA BOWEN HATCH LAW, PC COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARomo 1902 Wright Place, Suite 200 SAN BERNAano msmcr Carlsbad, CA 92008 DEC 2 2 2021 Tel: 760-539-7603 Fax: 760-539-9966 I . Theresa@bowenhatchlaw.com 9V W555 gab Deputy .' \OOONGU‘I#UJN Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 ABDIFATAH MOHAMED ABDI, CASE NO.: CIVSB 2123823 BY FAX 11 individually; 12 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER 13 ‘ vs. Complaint Filed: August 16, 2021 14 Dept.: S-25 15 KALgFREIGHT, INC., a corporation; PRO Judge: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo TEC,] INC., a corporation; KADER ISMAIL Trial Date: Not Set 16 KALIF, individually; and DOES 1-20, VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV inclusive, 17 Defendants 18 19 20 21 I. LEGAL ANALYSIS 22 A. Defendants’ Demurrer Is Untimely 23 Defendant Kal Freight was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint on September 21, 2021. (See Ex. 24 1, Hatch Decl. 1] 2) Defendant Pro Tec was served with Plaintiff's Complaint on September 21, 2021. 25 (See Ex. 2, Hatch Decl. 1] 3) Defendant Kalif was served with Plaintifl’s Complaint on September 24, 26 2021. (See Ex. 3, Hatch Decl. 1] 4) 27 28 Opposition to Demurrer A defendant can demur within the same period of time it has to answer the complaint—i.e., 30 extended by stipulation or court order. CCP § 430.40(a). Here, there was no days after service, unless stipulation or court order to extend the time period within which to file a demurrer. (Hatch Decl. 1] 5) Thus, any demurrer as to Kal Freight, Inc. and Pro Tec, Inc. was due on October 21, 2021. Any demurrer as to Kalif was due on October 24, 2021. However, Defendants’ demurrer was not filed until November \OWVO\MAMN 30, 2021. (See Register of Actions and Proof of Service) CCP section 430.41(a)(2) states: “The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic on or 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, bx filing and serving, 10 11 before? the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury 12 that a :good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties 13 could ?ot meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the responsive pleading 14 was pripviously due, and the demurring pany shall not be subject to default during the period of the 15 extensiZon. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.” l6 (emph;asis added) 17 Plaintifi‘ the “Declaration of Steven B. Heath to :0n October 29, 2021, Defendants served on 18 Pro Tec Inc, and Kader Ismail Kalif’s Responsive Pleading to Extend Defendants Kal Freight lnc., 19 Mohamed Abdi’s Complaint.” Plaintiff Adbifatah 20 CCP section 430.41(a)(2), Defendants’ declaration was required to be filed and E‘Pursuant to 21 servediby the date the demurrer was due: October 21 , 2021 for Kal Freight and Pro Tec and October 24, 22 2021 fat Kader Kalif. However, Defendants did not serve Mr. Heath’s declaration until October 29, 2021 23 — five days afier a responsive pleading was due for Defendant Kalif and eight days afier a responsive 24 pleading was due for Defendants Kal Freight and Pro Tec. (Hatch Decl. 1} 6) Moreover, Defendants did 25 not Mr. Heath’s declaration until November 1, 2021. (See Register of Actions) filei 26 Therefore, the Declaration of Mr. Heath did not grant an automatic 30-day extension of the time 27 within which to file a responsive pleading Pursuant to CCP section 430.4l(a)(2), and this demurrer is 28 under penalty of perjury that a good untimely. Moreover, Mr. Heath’s declaration did not “stat[e] -2- Opposition to Demurrer