CV-23-005247 – HIDALGO, EVARISTO vs THOMAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC – Defendant’s Demurrer to First, Second, third, and Fourth Causes of Action of the Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
Plaintiff’s objections to items 2 and 3 of the requested judicial notice are SUSTAINED.
The Court notes preliminarily that there is no declaration showing adequate meet and confer efforts. Nonetheless, the Court chooses to reach the merits.
There are two fatal defects to the pleading. First, the failure to contain contract specifics inclusive of the date renders the complaint fatally vague. Second, the failure to allege a contractor’s license causes the complaint to fail as currently pled. (See Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 842.) The Court is skeptical that expert testimony is necessary.
Plaintiff’s contention that the contractor’s license is necessary is not supported by the Space X case cited above.
Plaintiff suggests the date of cont
Hearing Date
December 07, 2023
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
CV-23-005247 – HIDALGO, EVARISTO vs THOMAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC – Defendant’s Demurrer to First, Second, third, and Fourth Causes of Action of the Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
Plaintiff’s objections to items 2 and 3 of the requested judicial notice are SUSTAINED.
The Court notes preliminarily that there is no declaration showing adequate meet and confer efforts. Nonetheless, the Court chooses to reach the merits.
There are two fatal defects to the pleading. First, the failure to contain contract specifics inclusive of the date renders the complaint fatally vague. Second, the failure to allege a contractor’s license causes the complaint to fail as currently pled. (See Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 842.) The Court is skeptical that expert testimony is necessary.
Plaintiff’s contention that the contractor’s license is necessary is not supported by the Space X case cited above.
Plaintiff suggests the date of cont