Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03687, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03687 Hearing Date: February 11, 2025 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
(1)
Defendants Glenn Wong and Shirley Wong’s
Demurrer to Verified Complaint is CONTINUED for the failure to meet and
confer.
(2)
Defendants Glenn Wong and Shirley Wong’s Motion
to Strike Portions of Verified Complaint is CONTINUED for the failure to
meet and confer.
Background
This is a partition case. Plaintiff Lisa Wong alleges the
following against Defendants Glenn Wong and Shirley Wong: Plaintiff and
Defendant Glenn acquired the subject property in 1996 by grant deed as joint
tenants. (Complaint ¶8.) (Defendants
are husband and wife. (¶1.) Plaintiff has lived in the property since
purchasing it. (¶17.) In February 2023, Defendants moved into the home. (¶18.)
Upon their arrival, Defendants engaged in various aggressive conduct such as
threatening to poison Plaintiff’s daughter’s food (¶20) and blocking Plaintiff
and her daughter from accessing the refrigerator (¶21.) In October 2023,
Plaintiff called 911 because Defendant Shirley kicked over Plaintiff’s
refrigerator. (¶23.)
On November
28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint asserting the following causes
of action (COAs) against Defendants:
1.
Partition by Sale of Real Property
2.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(IIED)
3.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
(NIED)
On April 29, 2024, the court held an OSC re failure to file
Proof of Service (POS) and a CMC during which Plaintiff’s Counsel informed the
court that “the parties are headed towards a resolution that will resolve the
partition issue.”
On August 19, 2024, the minute order from the OSC and CMC
provides that “Plaintiff's Counsel represents to the Court that parties have
exchanged the first draft of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff Counsel's oral
motion for a continuance of 30-days to fully execute the Settlement Agreement
and dismiss the case is heard and GRANTED.”
On October 17, 2024, the court’s minute order regarding the
OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) provides that Plaintiff’s Counsel has not had
communication with opposing counsel regarding the settlement.
On December 17, 2024, Defendants filed the instant
demurrer with a motion to strike. (The Defendants are pro per.)
On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed her respective
oppositions.
To date, as of Wed., 2/5/25, no reply has been filed (due 5
court days before hearing (Tues., 2/4).
Discussion
Defendants bring forth the demur as to the second and third
COAs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 430.10, subdivision (e)
(failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a COA). More specifically,
Defendants argue that the COAs fail to allege the necessary facts and/or, in
the alternative, fail as a matter of law since Plaintiff seeks purely economic
damages. (Demurrer p. 6:8-14.) The motion to strike seeks to strike punitive
damages and Plaintiff’s request for emotional distress damages.
The
court need not reach the merits of the motions as Defendants failed to meet and
confer. The party who filed the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer
shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally
sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint, cross-complaint, or
answer could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency. (Cal. Code of Civ.
Proc. Section 430.41 (a) (1).) The parties shall meet and confer at least five
days before the date the responsive pleading is due, and the demurring party
shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating the information
required in Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 430.41 (3).
Here,
according to Plaintiff, Defendant never reached out prior to filing the Demurrer;
Defendant's Demurrer also fails to include the required declaration.
Therefore, as Defendants have failed to file a reply to
explain otherwise, the court continues the hearing for the failure to engage in
the mandatory meet and confer process.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the matters are continued.