2. CV60992 Monica Dunkel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Pleading: Demurrer to second amended complaint
Demurring party: Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Demurrer filed: August 2, 2018 (hearing continued from October 5, 2018) Motion: Strike portions of second amended complaint
Moving party: Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Motion filed: August 2, 2018 (hearing continued from October 5, 2018) Tentative rulings: The unopposed demurrer is OVERRULED.
The unopposed motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below. Plaintiff shall not have leave to amend.
Analysis
The instant demurrer and motion to strike originally were set for hearing on October 5, 2018.
On the mid-afternoon of October 3, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearings. At that time, Plaintiff had not filed any oppositions. By minute order dated October 5, 2018, the Court granted the requested continuance and set a briefing schedule. Plaintiff’s oppositions were due no l
Hearing Date
January 04, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
2. CV60992 Monica Dunkel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Pleading: Demurrer to second amended complaint
Demurring party: Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Demurrer filed: August 2, 2018 (hearing continued from October 5, 2018) Motion: Strike portions of second amended complaint
Moving party: Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Motion filed: August 2, 2018 (hearing continued from October 5, 2018) Tentative rulings: The unopposed demurrer is OVERRULED.
The unopposed motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below. Plaintiff shall not have leave to amend.
Analysis
The instant demurrer and motion to strike originally were set for hearing on October 5, 2018.
On the mid-afternoon of October 3, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearings. At that time, Plaintiff had not filed any oppositions. By minute order dated October 5, 2018, the Court granted the requested continuance and set a briefing schedule. Plaintiff’s oppositions were due no l