Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV08051, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08051    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 68

“It is generally a poor practice to entirely ignore a motion filed against a party. At a minimum, the failure to file anything deprives the Court of the benefits of the view of the party.

“By failing to oppose the motion in the trial court, Stewart has forfeited his arguments that the trial court's ruling on the motion was erroneous. “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).)”. Stewart v. Extended Stay America (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 18, 2017, No. B272333) 2017 WL 4118064, at *5. 

This failure is compounded by the fact that Cross-Complainant avoided a hearing on the first demurrer by filing a First Amended Cross-Complaint one day prior to the hearing on the earlier demurrer. Thus, although Cross-Complainant has filed two cross-complaints, it has chosen to not provide the Court any information to support either filing.”

(Court’s Feb. 6, 2023, Order sustaining demurrer to the first amended cross-complaint.)

Cross-Defendant did not file a timely Opposition to the present demurrer and motion to strike filed regarding the Second Amended Cross-Complaint.  Oppositions were filed on May 15, 2023, the day prior to the hearing.  They shall not be considered by the Court.

The Cross-Complaint must be read in light  of the Court’s March 17, 2023, order granting issues sanctions.  The Cross-Complaint attempts to base causes of action on claims that are precluded by that order.  Therefore, the motion to strike is GRANTED and the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.