Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: JCCP5353, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: JCCP5353    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

Gleiberman Properties Cases

 

JCCP5353

 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

 

 

            The Court has read the Joint Status Conference Report filed in this case, discussed the case with the parties, and issues the following Case Management Order:

 

1.      All parties stipulate that the parties will litigate Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant’s answer only once in the lowest numbered case, Andrew Hayes vs Gleiberman Properties, Inc., 24STCV15576).  The demurrer has been fully briefed.  However, the Court orders the parties to file a Joint Statement.  In general, any issue on which defendants bear the burden of proof at trial is “new matter” and must be specially pleaded in the answer. (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 239, [“It has long been held that if the onus of proof is thrown upon the defendant, the matter to be proved by him is new matter” (internal quotes omitted)].); Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 755-756.)  However, certain affirmative defenses are proper legal defenses which are not waivable by failure to file an answer or demurrer, such as failure to state a claim.  (CCP § 430.80(a); Henry v. Associated Indemnity Corp. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1413 fn. 8.)  Accordingly, whether they are raised in the answer or later, these defenses are not waivable.  Here, the parties’ briefing fails to between the defenses that require the pleading of new matter and the defenses that do not require the pleading of new matter. Accordingly, for each affirmative defense, the Joint Statement must: (1) Plaintiff must identify what new matter must be alleged, (2) Plaintiff must cite legal authority, including case law, supporting Plaintiff's position that the particular defense requires the pleading of that new matter; and (3) Defendant must cite any authority supporting Defendant’s position that the particular defense does not require the pleading of that new matter.  The parties are to file the Joint Statement by no later than June 17, 2025.  The demurrer shall be heard on July 17, 2025 at 10 am.

 

2.      All parties stipulate that the parties will litigate Defendant’s motion for stay only once in the lowest numbered case, Andrew Hayes vs Gleiberman Properties, Inc., 24STCV15576).  Defendant’s motion to stay shall also be heard on July 17, 2025 at 10 am.  Defendant shall file and serve Defendant’s motion to stay by no later than May 16, 2025.  Plaintiff shall file and serve opposition papers by no later than June 6, 2025.  Defendant shall file and serve Defendant’s reply by no later than June 20, 2025.

 

3.      The status conference is CONTINUED TO July 17, 2025 at 10:00 am.  All counsel are ordered to appear.  No later than April 2, 2025, the parties are to file a Joint Status Report.

 

4.                  Discovery.   Discovery remains stayed until the case is at issue.

 

5.                  Potential Related Cases.  Counsel are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case for any potentially related cases pursuant California Rule of court Rule 3.300 of which they are or become aware.  This is a continuing obligation on all plaintiffs, defendants, cross-complainants and cross-defendants while this case is pending.

 

6.                  Protective Order.  Parties are alerted that model protective orders may be found at Los Angeles Superior Court website at http://www.lacourt.org under “Tools for Litigators.”  The parties are encouraged to use these model orders as shown, or if modified, as a template for the modified order.  A redlined courtesy copy is to be posted on the e-service bulletin board and lodged with the court at the time of filing. The parties are to use the redlined version to identify any changes proposed to the model order.

 

7.                  E-service.  The parties have agreed to utilize Case Anywhere for electronic service.  The parties are to prepare an order for the Court to sign authorizing Case Anywhere as the e-service provider to be used in this case. The parties shall use the e-service bulletin board in lieu of ex parte motions whenever possible. Argument shall not be posted on the bulletin board.

 

1.                  Telephonic conferences.  The Court handles pleading and discovery motions informally, using telephonic conferences and LA CourtConnect. Counsel must post a message via their Electronic Service Provider to request any informal discovery conference or other conference. The Court will either reply to the message or issue a Minute Order setting the conference.  The telephonic conference will automatically be taken off calendar if all relevant parties have not scheduled the telephonic conference with LA CourtConnect.  Parties must file and serve a 5-page joint brief two days before the conference. Since these conferences are informal, no court reporter or audio recording is permitted.

 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:         April 17, 2025                                    

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    ELAINE LU

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court




Website by Triangulus