Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 23STLC00527, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC00527     Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTIES:           Defendants Anthony Chavira and Elizabeth Chavira

RESP. PARTY:                     Plaintiff Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc.

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Demurrers of Defendants Anthony Chavira and Elizabeth Chavira are OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to respond to the Complaint within 10 days of this order.

SERVICE: 

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

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

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

OPPOSITION:          Filed April 27, 2023                                       [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 4, 2023                            [   ] Late                      [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff Consolidated Distributors, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Anthony Chavira (“Anthony”) and Elizabeth Chavira (“Elizabeth”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to enforce a mechanics lien.

On March 6, 2023, Defendants each filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Defendants did not reply. The Court will analyze the Demurrers together since they are identical to each other.

II.              Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

            A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. All other grounds listed in Section 430.10, including uncertainty under subdivision (f), are special demurrers. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

            Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

III.            Discussion

The Court notes that the Demurrers are not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(3). Although the Court may not deny a demurrer due to the moving party’s insufficient meet and confer efforts, that does not mean that Defendants can ignore the requirement. The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to encourage the parties to resolve their issues without judicial intervention. Failure to meet and confer undermines that purpose and encourages parties to ignore these requirements.

Moreover, the Court further notes that Defendants’ Demurrers fail to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.60, which provides that, “[a] demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.” Defendants have not specified which grounds in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 are the basis or bases for their Demurrers.

Accordingly, the Demurrers are OVERRULED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

The Demurrers of Defendants Anthony Chavira and Elizabeth Chavira are OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to respond to the Complaint within 10 days of this order.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.