Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STV09068, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STV09068    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 14

(1)       Motion to Continue

            Plaintiff now moves this court for “a continuance to obtain counsel.”

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

There is no proof of service indicating that the other parties have been provided with a copy of the motion. There is no indication in the document itself as to what hearing or proceeding Plaintiff seeks to delay. The only authority cited is California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332, which governs trial continuances. But there is no trial date currently set in this case.

(2)       Demurrer

            Defendant Leno now demurs to the Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state any cause of action.

Decision

            The demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s request in the opposition paperwork for a continuance of this hearing is DENIED.

Discussion

As explained by the court at the prior demurrers, the one-page complaint is incomprehensible. This is Plaintiff’s third attempt to plead this claim, and his pleadings have never improved. There is no probability that he will be able to amend to state a proper claim at this point.

Plaintiff has filed an opposition, an “Extraordinary Writ to Over Rule Sustained Demurrer” and a “Motion for Continuance to Obtain Counsel,” denied above. None of these papers explains the substance of Plaintiff’s claim, instead they repeatedly ask for more time so that Plaintiff can find counsel and obtain evidence.

Writ petitions are heard in the Court of Appeal, and the motion is woefully untimely. But even if these requests for more time were procedurally proper, they are substantively deficient. This case has been pending for almost a year and a half. Plaintiff has had plenty of time to seek counsel and gather evidence.

Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint remains unintelligible. He has had more than sufficient time to cure it, or to obtain counsel to cure it for him. That hasn’t happened. The court has no reason to believe that Plaintiff will be able to amend to state a proper claim at this point. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is DENIED.