Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC07014, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07014     Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Stacey Hale, et al.

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Quanda King

DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§ 430.10, 435 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Stacey Hale, et al.’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike is OVERRULED AS MOOT.

SERVICE:

[ X ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[ X ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                     NOT OK[1]

[ X ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          Filed on January 23, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 17, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff Quanda King (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendants Stacey Hale (“Hale”), FDC Management (“FDC Management”) and FDC Equities, Inc. (“FDC Equities”), (collectively “Defendants”) for eight different causes of action.

On November 30, 2022, Defendants filed a Declaration of Demurring or Moving Party in Support of Automatic Extension.

On December 30, 2022, Defendants filed a Demurrer (“Demurrer”) with Motion to Strike (“MTS”).  Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer and Motion to Strike (“Opposition”) on January 23, 2023.

On February 24, 2023, Defendants filed an Amended Notice of Demurrer and Amended Notice of Motion to Strike.

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed Substitution of Attorney, indicating that she had retained counsel to represent her in the instant action.  On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

II.              Legal Standard and Discussion

A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).)  When plaintiff files an amended complaint after a demurrer is filed, but before it is decided, the demurrer must be overruled as moot.  (JKC3H8 v. Colton, (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.)

Here, Plaintiff filed a timely First Amended Complaint.  Thus, Defendants’ Demurrer with Motion to Strike is overruled as moot.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reason,

Defendant Stacey Hale, et al.’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike is OVERRULED AS MOOT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.