Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV26361, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26361    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Defendants Aleks Lewandowski and Nastassia Posner move for a judgment of dismissal pursuant to the Court’s order of June 23, 2023 sustaining Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Aleks Lewandowski and Nastassia Posner’s motion for judgment of dismissal is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS 

Motion To Dismiss

Discussion

Defendants Aleks Lewandowski and Nastassia Posner move for a judgment of dismissal pursuant to the Court’s order of June 23, 2023 sustaining Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend as to the two causes of action asserted against Defendants Lewandowski and Posner. 

Civ. Proc. Code, § 581(f)(1) provides:

(f) The court may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant when:

(1) Except where Section 597[1] applies, after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained without leave to amend and either party moves for dismissal.

     (Civ. Proc. Code § 581(f)(1).)

On June 23, 2023, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend as to the first and sixth causes of action as to defendants Lewandowski and Posner, which were the only causes of action asserted against them. Plaintiff’s request that she be given additional time to retain counsel so she can properly amend the complaint is denied. A party represented by counsel would not be given such an opportunity, and pro per litigants are not entitled to special treatment in this regard. .  (See Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056; Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.)

            As such, dismissal pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 581(f)(1) is proper to Defendants Lewandowski and Posner. “Judgment in a multiparty case determining all issues as to one or more parties may be treated as final even though issues remain to be resolved between other parties.” (Morehart v. Cty. of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 725, 740 [bold emphasis added].)

            The motion for judgment of dismissal is GRANTED.