Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 25NNCV01241, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25NNCV01241 Hearing Date: May 30, 2025 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
chick ngai, Plaintiff, v. mike taghdis
continental townhomes at monterey park owners association, inc., et al., Defendants. |
Case
No.: 25NNCV01241 Hearing
Date: May 30, 2025 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: demurrer; motion to strike |
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiff Chick
Ngai (“Plaintiff,” a self-represented litigant) filed the first amended complaint
(“FAC”) on March 21, 2025 against Defendants Mike Taghdis, Continental
Townhomes at Monterey Park Owners Association, Inc., The Partner Communications
Management Inc., Beaumont Tashjian’s Kumar Raja, and Freda Leung. Plaintiff alleges that he lives in the
Continental Townhouse and that over the past 20 years he has experienced the
negligence and bureaucratic arrogance of the townhouse board of directors and
different cooperative management companies.
Plaintiff
alleges that the guardrail of the storm drain was not repaired for a long time
and that verbal conflicts existed between the owners for several years. He alleges that around August 2021, the
former board chairman Taghdis had a dispute with him because the agreed date to
repair the roof drainage was repeatedly postponed. He also alleges that in 2015, his neighbors
(the Kims) were told by Tagdhis to cover a wall with a large roller blind,
which amounts to fraud, intimidation, and extortion of the old, weak, and incompetent.
B. Motions
on Calendar
On April 16,
2025, Defendant Kumar S. Raja (erroneously sued as Beaumont Tashjian’s Kumar
Raja) filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the compliant.
The
Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. On May 21, 2025, Defendant Raja filed a notice
of non-opposition, stating that he did not receive an opposition brief from
Plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
On
February 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint. On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the
FAC. Thereafter, Raja filed the demurrer
and motion to strike portions of the complaint.
It
appears that the demurrer and motion to strike are directed against the initial
complaint and not the FAC. For example,
the demurrer cites to particular portions of the complaint at page 2, lines 4-5
or page 2, lines 11-13 (see Dem. at p.2), but these quoted portions in the
memorandum of points and authorities match the lines in the initial complaint
and not the FAC. The same applies to the
motion to strike, as the notice of motion cites to the initial complaint and
not the FAC.
The
Court has reviewed the documents filed in this action. While the FAC was filed on March 21, 2025, it
is not accompanied by a proof of service showing that Raja (or the other
Defendants) were served with the amended pleading. However, based on the Court’s records, the
FAC is the operative pleading in this action.
As
such, the Court takes the demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
off-calendar as moot. The Court also
notes that Raja filed a special motion to strike on May 6, 2025, which is set
for hearing on June 27, 2025. It appears
that the anti-SLAPP motion is also directed against the initial complaint and
not the operative FAC.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Defendant Kumar S.
Raja’s demurrer and motion to strike portions of the complaint is taken
off-calendar as the operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is
ordered to file a proof of service showing that the First Amended Complaint was
served on the parties in this action.
Defendant shall give notice of
this order.
DATED: May 30,
2025 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court