Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV03886, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV03886 Hearing Date: March 27, 2025 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
(1) DEFENDANT SYNTHETIC GRASS SUPERSTORE, INC.
DBA SGS TURF’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is CONTINUED for
Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer.
(2) DEFENDANT SYNTHETIC GRASS SUPERSTORE, INC.
DBA SGS MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS is CONTINUED for
Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer.
Plaintiff’s
counsel is ordered to meet and confer with Defense Counsel and then to file a
declaration memorializes the discussion. Should the parties agree to the filing
of a stipulated complaint, court requests that stipulation be filed at least 5
court days before the 4/28/25 continued hearing date.
Background
This case
arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened on 12/5/22. Plaintiff
CHARBEL YOUSSEF AZZI alleges the following against TIMOTHY JOHN VARGAS
(“Vargas”), SYNTHETIC GRASS SUPERSTORE, INC dba SGS TURF, a California
corporation (“SGS”) and NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA (“Insurance
Company”): Vargas, who was working in the scope of his employment SGS, collided
into Plaintiff’s vehicle. Vargas, “oblivious to the collision itself,” came to
a stop in front of a closed gate to a commercial company. (Complaint ¶17.) When
Vargas realized that an accident had taken place, he “immediately got back into
his truck and drove it straight past the gate and into the lot to sequester and
stow his truck out of Plaintiff’s sight.” (¶19.) Vargas then “began berating
and bullying Plaintiff, accusing Plaintiff of colliding with VARGAS’ truck and
that Plaintiff was responsible and at fault for the accident.” (¶22.) Since
Vargas was attempting to remove Plaintiff’s front bumper and refused to exchange
insurance information, Plaintiff, at the advice of his insurance agent, called
the police. (¶¶22-26.)
On November
13, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants asserting the following
causes of action (COAs):
1.
NEGLIGENCE
2.
INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED)
3.
NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (NIED)
4.
False
IMPRISONMENT
On February
19, 2025, SGS filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike (MTS). That same
day, the Insurance Company filed a similar demurrer and MTS. (Both Defendants
are represented by the same attorney, T. JOHN ARBUCCI.)
On March 14,
2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition to SGS’ demurrer and MTS.
On March 18,
2025, SGS filed its replies.
On March 21,
2025, Plaintiff dismissed the Insurance Company only. With that, the
Insurance Company’s demurrer and MTS were taken off calendar.
Discussion
Defendant SGS
demurs to the 2nd COA for IIED and 3rd COA for NIED on
the grounds that both COAs fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action, fail to state a claim, and are also uncertain. The court cannot
reach the merits as Plaintiff’s Counsel failed to meet and confer.
According to
Counsel Arbucci’s declaration, on January 7, 2025, he emailed Plaintiff’s
counsel attaching a detailed letter in order to meet and confer regarding the
legal and factual bases for Defendant’s Demurrer as to the second and third
causes of action in the verified complaint, as well as the legal and factual
bases for the motion to strike the punitive damages claims against Defendant.
(See Demurrer, Ex. 2, pp. 33-39 of PDF.) Defense Counsel did not receive any
substantive response from Plaintiffs’ counsel to my meet and confer letter, nor
a telephone call to meet and confer. The opposition does not dispute otherwise.
Under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 430.41, the demurring party must meet and confer with the party who
filed the challenged pleading “in person or by telephone” to determine if
the demurring party's
objections can be resolved by agreement. (§ 430.41, subd. (a)(1).) Trial courts
are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process. (Dumas
v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355,
fn. 3.) If “no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further
conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains
discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye
toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer,
and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Ibid; See
also § 430.41,
subd. (c) [“Nothing in this section [§ 430.41] prohibits the court
from ordering a conference own motion at any time or
prevents a party from requesting that the court order a conference to be held” (italics added)].) And parties are
not just to meet and confer, but to do in good faith. When the parties meet and confer (in person, by
telephone, or by videoconference), the demurring party must identify the specific
causes of action it believes are subject to demurrer, the basis for its position, and the legal
support for its position. (CCP § 430.41(a)(1).) The party whose pleading
is subject to demurrer must then either (1) provide legal support for its
position that the pleading is legally sufficient or (2) explain how an
amendment can cure any legal insufficiency. (Id.)
Here, Defense Counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s on a
couple of occasions about the legal authorities or specific reasons that
support each cause of action (COA). However, Plaintiff’s Counsel ignored the effort, despite does
seeming merit with the demurrer as “Plaintiff concedes SGS’ demurrer to its Third Cause of Action for
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”).” (Opp. p. 5:12-14.)
Thus, the
court order Plaintiff’s Counsel to meet and confer telephonically with Defense
Counsel. After the conversation, Plaintiff’s Counsel is to file a declaration
that memorializes the legal authorities and analysis discussed. Should the meet
and confer effort prove successful, the court encourages the parties to file a
stipulation to file an amended complaint. “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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §
472, sub. (a).)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the demurrer x SGS is continued
to 4/28/25.