Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

This case arises from an employment dispute.  Defendant El Silencio Holdings, Inc. is a mezcal production and distribution company.  Plaintiff was employed by El Silencio as its Vice President of Sales.  Plaintiff alleges she did not receive a promised pay increase or payment on a $500,000 loan she made to the company.  In addition to El Silencio, Plaintiff has sued three of its directors, CEO Austo Zapata, CFO Armando Sepulveda and Secretary Vicente Cisneros.   

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) fraud by concealment, (2) promissory fraud, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) negligent misrepresentation, and (5) violations of Labor Code §§ 201, 204, 227.3 and 2802 against Sepulveda. 

This hearing is on Sepulveda’s demurrer.  Sepulveda argues that (1) as a corporate officer, he cannot be held liable for torts in which he does not personally participate, of which he has no knowledge or to which he has not consented; (2) Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting each elements of his claim; and (3) Plaintiff has not plead fraud with the requisite specificity.     

Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41 requires that before the filing of a demurrer, the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).)   

Sepulveda submits the Declaration of Emily Chen who sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel, outlining one defect in the Complaint, to which Plaintiff’s counsel responded that he would not agree to dismiss the claims against Sepulveda.  There was no meet and confer in person or by telephone as required under the code.  Moreover, the meet and confer was not completed five days before the demurrer was filed.  While the Court may be able to overlook these deficiencies, the email sent by Ms. Chen does not include all the issues raised in the demurrer.  Ms. Chen’s correspondence raised one defect, not the multitude of other issues raised in the demurrer.  Accordingly, there was no meaningful meet and confer, and the Court will continue the hearing on the demurrer to May 27, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. to allow Sepulveda to fully comply with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41. 

 

DATED:  May 13, 2025        ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court