Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 24STLC02400, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24STLC02400, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC02400 Hearing Date: October 31, 2024 Dept: E

Case No: 24STLC02400
Hearing Date: 10/31/2024 – 10:30am

Trial Date: UNSET

Case Name: LAC VERDUGO OPERATIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company, doing business as GLENDALE POST ACUTE CENTER, v. FELICIDAD T. HONKALA, an individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive

[TENTATIVE RULING DEMURRER]

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Defendant FELICIDAD HONKALA (“Defendant”) will and hereby do demur to Plaintiff LAC VERDUGO OPERATIONS, LLC dba GLENDALE POST ACUTE CENTER’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10(e)&(g) on the grounds that Plaintiff’s first cause of action for Breach of Written Contract fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).

This Motion is made and based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Christopher W. Petersen, and upon such other or further evidence or oral argument which may be offered at the time of the hearing of this motion.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows:

1. That this Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint be sustained without leave to amend;

2. That judgment be entered in favor of the moving Defendant and against Plaintiff on this cause of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint; and

3. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.”

(Def. Mot. p.2.)

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, LAC Verdugo Operations, LLC, dba Glendale Post Acute Center, filed the instant action against Defendant, Felicidad T. Honkala, on 4/2/2024 alleging three causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Common Counts, and (3) Quantum Meruit.

On 7/16/2024, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint.

On 7/24/2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of substituted service.

On 9/30/2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

On 10/9/2024, this Court found 24GDCV00126 and 24STLC02400 to be related within the meaning of CRC, Rule 3.300(a), and it indicated that 24GDCV00126 to be the lead case.

On 10/21/2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendant.

The instant hearing on demurrer pertains to Defendant’s demurrer to the original Complaint filed on 4/2/2024.

PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS
Moving Party: Defendant, Felicidad Honkala

Responding Party: No Opposition by Plaintiff

Moving Papers: Demurrer

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply Papers: Notice of Non-Opposition

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP § 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b): Ok

Meet and Confer
A party filing a demurrer “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) “The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).)

Failure to sufficiently meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel alleges that a meet and confer occurred. (Petersen Decl. ¶ 4.)

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DEMURRERS
Demurrer – Sufficiency
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda, (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading … is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.)

On demurrer, a trial court has an independent duty to “determine whether or not the … complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (Das v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 727, 734.) Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) “Generally it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)

TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff filed its original Complaint on 4/2/2024.

On 9/30/2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to the original Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of written contract fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

On 10/21/2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. A party may amend the pleading after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike, upon stipulation by the parties. The time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date of service of the amended pleading.” (CCP § 472(a).)

Plaintiff here presumably filed and served its FAC on 10/21/2024 without leave of court and without stipulation by the parties under the theory that this filing would moot the demurrer to the original Complaint because it filed and served the FAC before the hearing on the demurrer.

However, under CCP § 472(a), and as Defendant’s notice of non-opposition pointed out, Plaintiff should have filed and served the FAC no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer.

Here, since the instant hearing is for 10/31/2024, the latest date for filing an opposition would have been 10/18/2024; therefore, Plaintiff should have filed and served its FAC on or before 10/18/2024. Plaintiff did not do that here; Plaintiff filed and served its FAC on 10/21/2024.

Defendant thus argues that since Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court, or stipulation of the parties, and since the FAC was filed and served after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer, the filing of the FAC is improper and untimely.

Defendant argues that since the demurrer remains unopposed, this Court should sustain Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action in the Complaint without leave to amend.

Here, although Defendant’s argument is correct as to Plaintiff’s FAC being untimely, the Court finds that this argument focuses on form over substance.

Further, even upon reviewing Defendant’s demurrer, the Court could still sustain the demurrer to the first cause of action and grant leave to amend.

Therefore, although the FAC is untimely by one court day, the Court treats this demurrer as moot in light of the filing of the FAC.

Plaintiff is admonished for the untimely filing, and in the future Plaintiff is ordered to comply with all applicable statutes, rules, and filing deadlines.

The parties are ordered to fully comply with their meet and confer obligations under CCP § 430.41 in connection with any further challenges to the pleadings.