On May 22, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bruce C. Williams,
and
Bayview Loan Servicing, Llc,
Diversified Investment Services, Inc,
Fidelity National Title Company,
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company,
Fidileity National Title And Ins.,
Interbay Funding,
Interbay Funding, Llc,
for Other Real Property Unlimited (26)
in the District Court of Santa Clara County.
Preview
F. Miller
Electronically Filed
TIMOTHY J. SILVERMAN #145264 by Superior Court of CA,
JOSHUA L. SCHEER #242722 County of Santa Clara,
BRYAN P, REDINGTON #313764
SCHEER LAW GROUP, LLP on 10/15/2019 3:46 PM
85 Argonaut, Suite 202 Reviewed By: F. Miller
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Case #18CV328516
Telephone: (949) 263-8757 Envelope: 3522376
Facsimile: (949) 308-7373
Attorneys for Defendant
DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC
(erroneously sued as DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICE)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10 BRUCE C. WILLIAMS, No. 18 CV 328 516
11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED
vs. INVESTMENT SERVICE’S
12 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO
13 BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST
14 INS. INTERBAY FUNDING; AMENDED COMPLAINT
DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT
15 Date: October 22, 2019
SERVICES, INC, AND DOES 1-5, et al.,
16 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
17 Dept.: 9
18
19
20
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21
Defendant DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. (erroneously sued as
22
Diversified Investment Service) (“Defendant”) replies to the opposition to its demurrer to the
23
First Amended Complaint, in the above captioned action. Plaintiff Bruce C. Williams’s
24
25 (“Plaintiff”) reply does not address a single argument, point, or authority identified within
26 Defendant’s demurrer.
27
28 1
DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
A PLAINTIFF CANNOT FILE A SINGLE OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANTS
DEMURRERS.
California Rules of Court Rule 3.1320 (e) requires that “a demurrer must state, on the
first page immediately below the number of the case, the name of the party filing the demurrer
and the name of the party whose pleading is subject to the demurrer.” Plaintiff's opposition
incorrectly lists all defendants and collectively defines them as “Defendant.” Plaintiff's
opposition grounds are not separately stated pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court 3.1320(a), and it is
impossible to discern to which papers Plaintiff is responding to an “en masse” opposition.
10 B. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS
ll DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS
12 Plaintiff's First Amended Complain names Defendant in a sole cause of action for elder
13
abuse. Defendant demurred to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint because: (1) the cause of
14
action for elder abuse alleged against Defendant fails to allege with specificity any of the
15
required elements for this claim; and, (2) Plaintiff's claim is past the statute of limitations and is
16
therefore time barred. Plaintiff's opposition does not address in the slightest degree any of
17
18 Defendant’s arguments or points. In fact, elder abuse is not mentioned a single time in Plaintiff's
19 opposition.
20 Cc. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE DENIED FURTHER AMENDMENTS
21
The right to amend is not guaranteed. Before a party may gain leave to amend, “they are
22
required to ce ‘show in what manner [they] can amend [their] complaint and how that
23
amendment will change the legal effect of [their] pleading...” [Citation.]’” Palm Springs Tennis
24
25 Club v. Rangel, 73 Cal.App.4" 1, 8 (1999).
26
27
28 2
DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S.
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Here the showing necessary to amend cannot be shown. Plaintiff in Paragraph 8 of the
opposition again requests leave to amend. However, Plaintiff fails to identify what facts he
could add that could possibly salvage his complaint against Defendant. In essence, there are no
facts which can be plead to maintain a complaint against Defendant. Because Plaintiff failed to
provide any specific facts relating to the cause of action, Plaintiff's request for leave to amend
must be denied.
I CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court sustain the
10 demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without further leave to amend, dismiss
It Defendant from this action with prejudice, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant.
12
13
Dated: October Coin 9 SCHEER LAW GROUP, LLP
14
15
16
TIMOT! J. SILVERMAN
17 Attorneys for Defendant
DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
October 15, 2019
Case Filing Date
May 22, 2018
Category
Other Real Property Unlimited (26)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
F. Miller Electronically Filed TIMOTHY J. SILVERMAN #145264 by Superior Court of CA, JOSHUA L. SCHEER #242722 County of Santa Clara, BRYAN P, REDINGTON #313764 SCHEER LAW GROUP, LLP on 10/15/2019 3:46 PM 85 Argonaut, Suite 202 Reviewed By: F. Miller Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Case #18CV328516 Telephone: (949) 263-8757 Envelope: 3522376 Facsimile: (949) 308-7373 Attorneys for Defendant DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC (erroneously sued as DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICE) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 BRUCE C. WILLIAMS, No. 18 CV 328 516 11 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED vs. INVESTMENT SERVICE’S 12 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 13 BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST 14 INS. INTERBAY FUNDING; AMENDED COMPLAINT DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT 15 Date: October 22, 2019 SERVICES, INC, AND DOES 1-5, et al., 16 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 Dept.: 9 18 19 20 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 Defendant DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. (erroneously sued as 22 Diversified Investment Service) (“Defendant”) replies to the opposition to its demurrer to the 23 First Amended Complaint, in the above captioned action. Plaintiff Bruce C. Williams’s 24 25 (“Plaintiff”) reply does not address a single argument, point, or authority identified within 26 Defendant’s demurrer. 27 28 1 DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT A PLAINTIFF CANNOT FILE A SINGLE OPPOSITION TO ALL DEFENDANTS DEMURRERS. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1320 (e) requires that “a demurrer must state, on the first page immediately below the number of the case, the name of the party filing the demurrer and the name of the party whose pleading is subject to the demurrer.” Plaintiff's opposition incorrectly lists all defendants and collectively defines them as “Defendant.” Plaintiff's opposition grounds are not separately stated pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court 3.1320(a), and it is impossible to discern to which papers Plaintiff is responding to an “en masse” opposition. 10 B. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ll DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS 12 Plaintiff's First Amended Complain names Defendant in a sole cause of action for elder 13 abuse. Defendant demurred to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint because: (1) the cause of 14 action for elder abuse alleged against Defendant fails to allege with specificity any of the 15 required elements for this claim; and, (2) Plaintiff's claim is past the statute of limitations and is 16 therefore time barred. Plaintiff's opposition does not address in the slightest degree any of 17 18 Defendant’s arguments or points. In fact, elder abuse is not mentioned a single time in Plaintiff's 19 opposition. 20 Cc. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE DENIED FURTHER AMENDMENTS 21 The right to amend is not guaranteed. Before a party may gain leave to amend, “they are 22 required to ce ‘show in what manner [they] can amend [their] complaint and how that 23 amendment will change the legal effect of [their] pleading...” [Citation.]’” Palm Springs Tennis 24 25 Club v. Rangel, 73 Cal.App.4" 1, 8 (1999). 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Here the showing necessary to amend cannot be shown. Plaintiff in Paragraph 8 of the opposition again requests leave to amend. However, Plaintiff fails to identify what facts he could add that could possibly salvage his complaint against Defendant. In essence, there are no facts which can be plead to maintain a complaint against Defendant. Because Plaintiff failed to provide any specific facts relating to the cause of action, Plaintiff's request for leave to amend must be denied. I CONCLUSION Based on the forgoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court sustain the 10 demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without further leave to amend, dismiss It Defendant from this action with prejudice, and enter judgment in favor of Defendant. 12 13 Dated: October Coin 9 SCHEER LAW GROUP, LLP 14 15 16 TIMOT! J. SILVERMAN 17 Attorneys for Defendant DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT