Judge: Daniel S Belsky, Case: 37-2022-00048350-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 13, 2023

12/14/2023  02:00:00 PM  504 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Daniel S. Belsky

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate  Trust Proceedings Demurrer / Motion to Strike (Probate) 37-2022-00048350-PR-TR-CTL IN THE MATTER OF THE HAIM FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 10, 2016 CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 10/19/2023

Pursuant to Superior Court of San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 4.23.7, the Court's tentative ruling is as follows: The unopposed Demurrer filed by Suda Miller is OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION On August 22, 2023, Mr. Haim filed a 'PETITION TO INVALIDATE/TERMINATE THE HAIM FAMILY TRUST, BEING USED AS AN ENTERPRISE FOR MONEY-LAUNDERING; FORGERY; UNDUE INFLUENCE OF THE SETTLOR; AND FOR DAMAGES FOR ELDER ABUSE OF THE SETTLOR WHO WAS MURDERED BY THE KHAZARIAN JEWISH MAFIA IN 2014' ('Petition'). (ROA 179.) On October 19, 2023, Suda Miller ('Respondent') filed a demurrer to the Petition. (ROA 199.) As a preliminary matter, the Court observes that Respondent's demurrer fails to comply with CRC 3.1100(f)(4), which requires that unless submitted by a self-represented party, the electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit, with bookmark titles identifying the exhibit number and briefly describing the exhibit, and with Local Rules, rule 4.3.2.A.4, which requires that '[p]leadings that contain more than one exhibit attached must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.' (See ROA 199, Exhs. A-D.) Respondent is expected to comply with all applicable rules in the future.

On the merits, the Petition was filed on August 22, 2023. There is no proof of service filed indicating when the Petition was served on Respondent. However, Respondent's counsel sent Mr. Haim a meet-and-confer letter dated September 5, 2023. (ROA 199, Demurrer, Exh. A.) As such, it may be presumed that the Petition was served on Respondent at least by September 5, 2023, if not earlier.

Respondent had 30 days from September 5, 2023, or until October 5, 2023, to file the demurrer, or a declaration pursuant to CCP § 430.41, but the demurrer was not filed until October 19, 2023, well past the 30-day deadline provided for in CCP § 430.40(a) ('A person against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may, within 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint, demur to the complaint or cross-complaint.'). There is no declaration filed and served 'on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer,' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3046080 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE HAIM FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER  37-2022-00048350-PR-TR-CTL triggering the automatic 30-day extension. (CCP § 430.41(a)(2).) The only declaration filed in support of the demurrer was filed on October 19, 2023, past the 30 days provided for in CCP § 430.40.

Respondent presents no argument regarding the timeliness of the demurrer or why the Court should consider the merits of the demurrer despite the untimeliness.

Respondent is also not prevented from bringing another motion to challenge the pleadings. (CCP § 438(f)(2) [If the moving party is a defendant, a motion for judgment on the pleadings 'may be made only after ... the defendant has already filed his or her answer to the complaint and the time for the defendant to demur to the complaint has expired.']; International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 230 v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1196 ['A motion for judgment on the pleadings is analogous to a general demurrer, but is made after the time to file a demurrer has expired.'].) The Court is not in receipt of any opposition from Mr. Haim, who is self-represented. Thus, the Court declines to exercise discretion and rule on the merits of the motion.

Therefore, the demurrer is OVERRULED as untimely pursuant to CCP § 430.40.

Counsel for Respondent is directed to serve notice of ruling on all parties in accordance with the provisions of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3046080