Defendants Savannah Tutaj, Maren Carmona, and Andrea Lua
demur to the entirety of Plaintiff David Elias’ First Amended Complaint:
1. Negligence
2. Negligence Per Se
3. “Unruh Act”
4. Libel
5. Breach of Contract
6. Fraud
7. Specific Performance
8. Petition to Disbar
9. Declaratory Relief
10. “Restraint on Trade”
11. Breach of Contract
12. Unruh Act
13. 42 USC 1983
14. Due Process Violation
15. Unfair Business Practices
16. Injunctive Relief
17. Conversion
18. Negligent Hiring
19. Misappropriation of Likeness
20. IIED AND NIED
21. “Oppression”
22. Civil Rico
On June 13, 2019 the court sustained a demurrer by Defendant Carolyn Olson to the entire complaint with leave to amend certain causes of action and without leave to amend as to others. The 1st Amended Complaint is not yet due.
The basis, in part, for sustaining Olson’s demurrer was that the complaint was uncertain and unintelligible. The court repeats the following from its prior tentative ruling which applie
Hearing Date
June 25, 2019
Type
Civil Rights/Discrimination (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendants Savannah Tutaj, Maren Carmona, and Andrea Lua
demur to the entirety of Plaintiff David Elias’ First Amended Complaint:
1. Negligence
2. Negligence Per Se
3. “Unruh Act”
4. Libel
5. Breach of Contract
6. Fraud
7. Specific Performance
8. Petition to Disbar
9. Declaratory Relief
10. “Restraint on Trade”
11. Breach of Contract
12. Unruh Act
13. 42 USC 1983
14. Due Process Violation
15. Unfair Business Practices
16. Injunctive Relief
17. Conversion
18. Negligent Hiring
19. Misappropriation of Likeness
20. IIED AND NIED
21. “Oppression”
22. Civil Rico
On June 13, 2019 the court sustained a demurrer by Defendant Carolyn Olson to the entire complaint with leave to amend certain causes of action and without leave to amend as to others. The 1st Amended Complaint is not yet due.
The basis, in part, for sustaining Olson’s demurrer was that the complaint was uncertain and unintelligible. The court repeats the following from its prior tentative ruling which applie