Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 18-1021633, Date: 2022-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Consolidate

The plaintiff has renewed his motion to consolidate this case with others.  It was previously denied.  The plaintiff has not provided any additional information that would suggest that consolidation would be appropriate.

The plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is DENIED.

Demurrer

The demurrer of (what has denominated as) South Longspur Trust to Hoang’s Third Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The court first notes that the demurrer exceeds the page limits imposed by the Rules of Court.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).)  The page limit is 15 pages, unless prior permission to file a longer brief has been allowed by the court.  Here, the defendant submitted a 37-page document without prior approval.  Given the number of causes of action asserted a longer brief is appropriate.  Moreover, given the plaintiff has not filed a meaningful opposition, it is unclear how he might have been prejudiced by the longer motion.  The court accepts the brief, as filed.

Ironically, the defendant complains that the plaintiff violated this court’s order to limit its amended complaint to 8 pages (in an attempt to have the plaintiff focus his allegations) and that the plaintiff actually filed an amended pleading, including exhibits, of 40 pages.  The court accepts the amended complaint, as filed.

Even more ironic is that the demurrer includes arguments that are not properly part of a demurrer (i.e., they go to portions of a cause of action), and they would more properly be brought as a motion to strike.  The court appreciates defendant’s attempt to respond to an amended complaint that is not well crafted.  But that is not an excuse to file a demurrer that exemplifies the same types of problems defendant complains infect the amended complaint.

The court also notes that a Request for Judicial Notice of certain filed and recorded documents has been made by the defendant.  The court grants the Request for Judicial Notice of these documents as allowed pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (d) and (h), but declines to take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements contained therein.

The plaintiff did not file any meaningful opposition to the demurrer.  However, in the document he did file, he suggests the demurrer is untimely.  Even if it were untimely (although it appears on its face to have been timely), the court elects to exercise its discretion to consider the demurrer and concludes there is no prejudice to the plaintiff in doing so.  (See, e.g., Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 742, 749.)

On the merits, the court finds the Third Amended Complaint fails to state any cause of action against this particular defendant, the good faith purchaser.  The plaintiff has been afforded four opportunities to state viable causes of action but has not done so.  This time, he has not even filed opposition to the demurrer on the merits.

The court has reviewed the pleadings understanding that the plaintiff is self-represented, and that English is not his first language.  But following that review, the court cannot find a viable cause of action against this defendant.  Further, the court does not find there is any reason to afford the plaintiff any further opportunities to amend the complaint.

Notice

The defendant shall give notice.