Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00028102-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 06, 2024

06/07/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00028102-CU-MC-CTL PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY VS WEBB [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Pillars of the Community's Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Pillars of the Community's Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint is off calendar as MOOT in light of the ruling on the demurrer.

Demurrer Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Pillars of the Community's (Pillars) request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no 'speaking demurrers'). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) The complaint must be liberally construed and given a reasonable interpretation, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140–141; see also, Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-12 [in ruling on demurrers, courts treat as being true 'not only the complaint's material factual allegations, but also facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged'].) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Webb filed an opposition that does not substantively address the arguments raised in the demurrer. (ROA 92.) The first cause of action for declaratory relief is uncertain. (C.C.P., § 430.10(f).) Webb does not oppose this ground for demurrer and concedes the cause of action is 'duplicative' of Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief. (Opp., at p. 2:24-25.) Webb also did not request leave to amend in the opposition, nor identify any facts to cure the defects raised in the demurrer. (Ko v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.

(2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1150 (explaining the plaintiff has the burden of proving an amendment would cure the legal defect.) While Webb references her motion for leave to amend a cross-complaint, which is not now before the Court and is not scheduled to be heard until after the trial, the Court has not considered that motion for this demurrer and motion to strike.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3135249  59 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY VS WEBB [IMAGED]  37-2022-00028102-CU-MC-CTL The demurrer to the second cause of action for injunctive relief is 'on grounds of res judicata/collateral estoppel...as it seeks relief from members of [Pillars] that was already sought and denied in a prior action and therefore cannot be re-pled.' While res judicata is properly raised as a defense on a demurrer when all relevant facts are within the complaint or subject to judicial notice (see, Boyd v. Freeman (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 847, 855), it involves: (i) the same cause of action; (ii) between the same parties; (iii) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. (Ibid.) Here, the same parties were not involved in the restraining order action. In the restraining order action, Webb sued individual members of Pillars, but not Pillars itself. There is also no request of judicial notice of any final judgment.

Notwithstanding, Webb did not make any substantive opposition to Pillars' position and conceded the 'vandalism...ceased' implying there is no viable request for injunctive relief. (Opp., at p. 2:26-28.) Again, Webb did not request leave to amend, nor identify facts to cure this defect. (Ko, supra.) Thus, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Motion to Strike In light of the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is MOOT and ordered off calendar.

Concluding Orders This ruling is dispositive of the Denise Webb's Cross-Complaint.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Cross-Defendants are ordered to serve written notice of the Court's final ruling on all appearing parties by June 11, 2024.

This is the second reminder to the parties to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures (available on the San Diego Superior Court website) and to provide courtesy copies of all motion paperwork.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3135249  59