Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV03306, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A.’s unopposed demurrer to pro per Plaintiff Perla Salvador’s complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (“Defendant”) demurs unopposed to pro per Plaintiff Perla Salvador’s (“Salvador”) (“Plaintiff”) complaint (“Complaint”). (Notice of Demurrer, pg. 1.)

Before filing a demurrer, the moving party must meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading and obviate the need for filing the demurrer. (C.C.P. §430.41, emphasis added.)

Defendant’s counsel declares that on February 10, 2025, she made two attempts to telephonically meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the instant demurrer, but Plaintiff did not return any of her calls. (See Decl. of Figueroa ¶2.) Defendant’s counsel’s declaration is sufficient under C.C.P. §430.41. Accordingly, the Court will consider Defendant’s demurrer.

Plaintiff filed her operative one-page Complaint against Defendant on February 8, 2024, alleging four causes of action.

Defendant filed the instant demurrer on February 11, 2025. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the basis it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against Defendant and is defectively uncertain. (Demurrer, pg. 3; C.C.P. §§430.10(e), (f).)

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

A complaint, to be sufficient, must contain a statement of facts which, without the aid of other conjectured facts not stated, shows a complete cause of action. (Going v. Dinwiddie (1890) 86 Cal. 633, 637; Hawkins v. Oakland Title Insurance & Guaranty Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 116, 122.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of a single page that lists four causes of action without a single factual allegation in support. Plaintiff fails to allege a single element of any of the twenty-eight causes of action listed.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant’s unopposed demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court