Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV04699, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04699    Hearing Date: October 23, 2023    Dept: 14

(1)       Demurrer

 

            Defendant Manhattan Loft now demurs to the eighth cause of action in the complaint on the grounds that the facts alleged are insufficient to support that cause of action, and are uncertain.

 

Decision

 

            The demurrer is CONTINUED to December 12, 2023.

 

            Plaintiff filed an opposition to the demurrer on July 3, 2023. That opposition includes a proof of service by mail. But on August 23, 2023, Defendant Manhattan Loft filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. For whatever reason, Plaintiff’s opposition did not reach Defendant Manhattan Loft, which in turn failed to file the reply memorandum to which the law entitles it. Therefore, the hearing is continued to give Defendant Manhattan Loft a chance to review the opposition and prepare a reply.

 

(2)       Motion to Strike Complaint

 

            Defendant now moves this court for an order striking certain allegations from the Complaint.

 

Decision

 

The motion is CONTINUED to December 12, 2023.

 

            Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on July 3, 2023. That opposition includes a proof of service by mail. But on August 23, 2023, Defendant Manhattan Loft filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. For whatever reason, Plaintiff’s opposition did not reach Defendant Manhattan Loft, which in turn failed to file the reply memorandum to which the law entitles it. Therefore, the hearing is continued to give Defendant Manhattan Loft a chance to review the opposition and prepare a reply.

 

(3)       Motion to Strike Answer

 

            Plaintiff now moves this court for an order striking the Answer of the DTLA Defendants because it was not verified.

 

            The motion is GRANTED. The DTLA Defendants are to file a verified answer within 20 days.

 

The motion is unopposed. This amounts to a concession that it has merit. See California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1320(f); Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20. The alleged defect, however, is eminently curable, and Defense will be allowed to cure it.