Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00403, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
ALERT
Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.
Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.
The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:
https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/
*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost
Dept. M issues tentative rulings in many, but not all motion hearings. There is no set time at which tentatives are posted. Please do not call the staff to inquire if a tentative will be posted.
If parties are satisfied with the ruling, parties may submit on the tentative. However, if an opposing party does not submit, they will be permitted to argue. Please check with the other side before calling the courtroom to submit. The staff does not keep track of which parties submitted and which did not, so please do not ask.
If a matter is also a scheduling hearing (CMC, TSC, OSC etc) an appearance is still required even if a party submits on the tentative ruling.
Case Number: 22TRCV00403 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: M
|
Superior Court
of California County of Los
Angeles Southwest
District Torrance Dept. M |
|||
|
NORMA
WESOLOWSKI, et al., |
Plaintiffs, |
Case No.: |
22TRCV00403 |
|
vs. |
|
[Tentative]
Ruling |
|
|
AMAL
ZAKY, et al., |
Defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: September 29, 2022
Moving Parties: Defendants Amal Zaky and
Palo Vista Property Management
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Norma Wesolowski,
Brenda Zuniga, and Yessenia Bueno
Demurrer to Complaint
The court considered the moving and
opposition papers. No reply has been filed.
RULING
The demurrer to complaint is CONTINUED
to _______________.
BACKGROUND
On May 27, 2022, plaintiffs Norma
Wesolowski, Brenda Zuniga, and Yessenia Bueno filed a complaint against
defendants Amal Zaky and Palo Vista Property Management for (1) breach of
contract, (2) private nuisance, (3) unfair competition (Business and
Professions Code section 17200), (4) negligence, and (5) failure to return
security deposit.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations
liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of
Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228. “A demurrer
tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic
matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of
the pleading or are judicially noticed.” SKF Farms v. Superior
Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905. “The only issue involved
in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with
extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda (2007)
147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the demurrer on September 2, 2022.
Plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service demonstrating the
opposition was served on defendants.
Defendants have not filed a reply in support of their demurrer or
otherwise indicated they have received a copy of plaintiffs’ opposition. It is thus unclear whether defendants were
properly served with plaintiffs’ opposition.
Under these circumstances, the court will continue the demurrer to allow
plaintiffs an opportunity to serve the opposition on defendants and file proof
of service of such, as well as to allow defendants an opportunity to file a
reply.
Accordingly, the demurrer to
complaint is continued to ______________.
Plaintiffs are ordered to serve the
opposition papers on defendants and file proof of service of such.
Reply due per code.
Defendants are ordered to give
notice of the ruling.