Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 23STCV23672, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23672    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: 37

Valence Surface v. Justine Gavin LLC                                                         Hearing Date: 12/17/2024                                                                                                                                       (23STCV23672)

Tentative Ruling: TCFI’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint

The court fails to see why this demurrer with a motion to strike the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) should go forward when a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Cross-Complaint (“TACC”) is pending. Cross-Defendants fail to explain why permitting amendment of the SACC would not render moot their demurrer or why Cross-Defendants could not stipulate to the filing of a TACC and then challenge the TACC on its merits.

 The purpose of the meet and confer process is to try to resolve issues and avoid unnecessary motion practice. “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel….  Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”  (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) “[Trial courts are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process.” (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 356, fn. 3.) “If upon review of a declaration under 430.41(a)(3), a court learns no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains the discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Id.)

 Cross-Defendants contend that the SACC exceeded the scope of permissible amendment by adding, without leave of court, a new party and new causes of action. The Parties should have met and conferred to see if they could stipulate to the filing of a TACC. As no resolution was reached, Cross-Complainants should have promptly sought leave to file a new amended SACC, something Cross-Complainants failed to do until after the demurrer and reply to the TACC had been filed. To the extent, Cross-Defendants maintain the breach of contract claims fail, the court fails to see why Cross-Defendants cannot file a demurrer to those claims after the TACC is filed. Moreover, if Cross-Defendants maintain that the court wrongfully overruled a demurrer, Cross-Defendants can demurrer again to the same cause of action. (See Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) As to the demurrer to the other causes of action, the court again fails to see how a stipulation to the filing of a TACC prevents Cross-Defendants from demurring to those causes of action.

 The court continues this demurrer and motion to strike until after the hearing on Cross-Complainants motion for leave to file a TACC. The court encourages the Parties to continue meeting and conferring in good faith with an aim towards reducing the number of motions brought before this court.