1. CV61232 Tri-Technic, Inc. v. Con Serve, Inc., et al.
Pleading: Demurrers to Second Amended Complaint
Demurring parties: Defendants Con Serve, Inc.; Michaelyn Allene Sanders; and Steve Farinha
Demurrers filed: October 29, 2018 (amended) (continued from November 30, 2018) Motion: Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Second Amended Complaint Moving parties: Defendants Con Serve, Inc.; Michaelyn Allene Sanders; and Steve Farinha
Motion filed: November 2, 2018 (continued from November 30, 2018) Tentative rulings: The hearing on the “Demurrers” will be CONTINUED to March 15, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., as set forth below.
The motion to strike is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Analysis
The operative complaint is the second amended complaint (hereafter SAC), which alleges 22 causes of action. The SAC was filed on September 4, 2018, pursuant to a stipulation and order filed on August 28, 2018. The August 28, 2018, stipulation and order also provided that Defendants’ responsive pleadings to the S
Hearing Date
January 25, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
1. CV61232 Tri-Technic, Inc. v. Con Serve, Inc., et al.
Pleading: Demurrers to Second Amended Complaint
Demurring parties: Defendants Con Serve, Inc.; Michaelyn Allene Sanders; and Steve Farinha
Demurrers filed: October 29, 2018 (amended) (continued from November 30, 2018) Motion: Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Second Amended Complaint Moving parties: Defendants Con Serve, Inc.; Michaelyn Allene Sanders; and Steve Farinha
Motion filed: November 2, 2018 (continued from November 30, 2018) Tentative rulings: The hearing on the “Demurrers” will be CONTINUED to March 15, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., as set forth below.
The motion to strike is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Analysis
The operative complaint is the second amended complaint (hereafter SAC), which alleges 22 causes of action. The SAC was filed on September 4, 2018, pursuant to a stipulation and order filed on August 28, 2018. The August 28, 2018, stipulation and order also provided that Defendants’ responsive pleadings to the S