Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV02145, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV02145 Hearing Date: November 26, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date:
11-26-24
Case
# 24CHCV02145, Buchanan v. Jimenez, et al.
Trial
Date: None set.
DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff Breonca Buchanan
RESPONDING
PARTY: None.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Sustain
Demurrer to defendant’s answer or, in the alternative, grant the Motion to
Strike:
·
2nd
Affirmative Defense
·
3rd
Affirmative Defense
·
4th
Affirmative Defense
·
6th
Affirmative Defense
·
7th
Affirmative Defense
·
8th
Affirmative Defense
·
9th
Affirmative Defense
·
12th
Affirmative Defense
·
14th
Affirmative Defense
·
16th
Affirmative Defense
·
17th
Affirmative Defense.
RULING: Parties are
ordered to meet and confer.
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
On
June 10, 2024, Breonca Buchanan filed this action against Brian Jimenez and
Dominique Domingo alleging they discriminated against her by denying rental
opportunities based on her status as a Section 8 recipient. The complaint alleges causes of action for
negligence and violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Unruh Civil
Rights Act, Los Angeles Municipal Code, and the Unfair Business Practices Act.
On
September 25, 2024, Defendants filed an answer denying all factual allegations
and asserting eighteen (18) affirmative defenses including unclean hands,
statute of limitations, failure to mitigate damages, and failure to state
sufficient facts. Defendants’ answer was
pro per.
On
October 21, 2024, Buchanan demurred to the entire answer and filed a motion to
strike.
Defendants
did not file an opposition.
Meet and Confer
Before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the
parties must meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference.”
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a), 435.5, subd. (a).)
Buchanan’s counsel of record, Frederick Chernoff, states
that on September 27, 2024, Defendants sent Chernoff a copy of their answer. (Chernoff Dec., ¶¶ 3, 4.) Defendants’ counsel, Sevag Simonian, emailed Chernoff
stating he only represented Defendants for settlement negotiations. (Chernoff Dec., ¶ 4., Exh. 2, at p. 1.) From October 2, 2024 through October 8, 2024,
Chernoff and Simonian emailed back and forth to meet and confer about issues
with the Answer and to extend the deadline to file a demurrer and motion to
strike by two weeks. (Chernoff Dec., ¶¶
5-8, Exh. 2.) Chernoff provided a broad
legal basis for his issues with the Answer’s affirmative defenses. However, because Simonian only represents
Defendants for the limited scope of settlement negotiations, he requested
Chernoff send him a detailed description of the issues with the Answer so that he
could discuss it with Defendants. Chernoff refused to send another meet and
confer analysis, and Simonian refused to meet and confer telephonically. (Chernoff Dec., ¶ 8.)
The meet and confer requirement is not met. Regardless of the limited scope of Simonian’s
representation, Defendants and Chernoff must meet and confer in person,
telephonically, or by video conference. Because
Defendants’ answer was pro per, Plaintiff must meet and confer directly with
Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court will not rule on this demurrer
and motion to strike until the parties properly meet and confer.
ORDER
The Court stays this hearing and orders the parties
to:
1.
Meet and confer in person or
telephonically.
2.
File a joint statement of the outcome of
the meet and confer within ten (10) days of this order’s date.
Moving Party to give notice.