Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV03252, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03252    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants’ demurrer is procedurally defective, and is therefore OVERRULED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

            On 2/14/2023, Lynn Stepanian (Plaintiff) initiated this action. On 7/15/2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against 10 different Defendants, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; (3) breach of good faith and fair dealing; (4) wrongful termination; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraudulent inducement; (7) fraudulent transfer; (8) wrongful termination; (9) discrimination; (10) retaliation; (11) violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 203; (12) declaratory relief; (13) promissory estoppel; (14) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (15) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

            On 8/14/2023, Raven Capital Management, LLC, (Raven Capital Management), Rive Releasing, LLC, (Rive Releasing), OR Acquisition Co, LLC, (OR Acquisition), Rive TM, LLC, (Rive TM), Rive CS, LLC, (Rive CS), RCM AWC, LLC, (RCM AWC), RCM Film Services LLC (RCM Film Services), James Masciello, (Masciello), and Matthew Sidari, (Sidari, and collectively the Defendants) demurred to the SAC.

            California Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 3.1113, subdivision (d) expressly provides (emphasis added) that “Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” Despite this clear mandate, Defendants first filed a demurrer totaling 54 pages. Then, in response, filed an amended demurrer. However, that filing totaled 26 pages.

            Such a filing is procedurally defective, and will not be considered. CRC Rule 3.1113, subdivision (e) clearly provides that in order to file a memorandum exceeding the page-limit, a party must apply to the Court ex parte at least 24 hours before filing the memorandum to seek permission for the filing. Such an application must expressly set forth the reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit.

            There is still no indication that Defendants have taken any steps to comply with this procedural requirement, and thus cannot be considered. While the Court understands the necessity of responding to all 15 causes of action, all Defendants are required to do is follow the clearly laid out rules to file a memorandum which still exceeds the mandatory limit. Rather than do so, Defendants filed an amended motion which still exceeds the page limit by 11 pages. Defendants’ repeated and willful failures to comply with clear Court rules are not well-taken, and will not be considered.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.