Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV24437, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 1, 2023

Case Name: Krouch, et al. v. PR2020, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 21STLC06411

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Defendant PR2020, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is sustained, with twenty days leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On November 17, 2021, Plaintiffs Heang Krouch, Tieng Uch, Bryan Tamoriabowen, Luzmila Villalobos, Jeffrey Marduce, Emad Sukkar, and Robert Gooch filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant PR2020, LLC for (1) declaratory relief, (2) breach of contract, and (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On February 6, 2023, Defendant PR2020, LLC filed a Demurrer to the FAC.

On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint. This pleading was rejected because Plaintiffs did not seek leave to amend.

The Demurrer is otherwise unopposed.

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, and “treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn v. Mirda¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) It is error “to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.” (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.¿(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

As there is no opposition, the FAC is deemed abandoned. (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.) The Demurrer is sustained, with twenty days leave to amend. The Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case Number: 22STCV24437 Hearing Date: May 1, 2023 Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Department 20

Hearing Date: May 1, 2023

Case Name: Stallworth v. Stallworth, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV24437

Matter: Motion for Protective Order

Moving Party: Defendant Bruce Stallworth

Responding Party: Plaintiff Carolyn Williams Stallworth

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff Carolyn Williams Stallworth filed the Complaint against Defendant Bruce Stallworth, individually and as trustee of the Fred Stallworth, Jr. Revocable Trust for (1) fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting, and (3) an accounting. Plaintiff alleges that Fred Stallworth became indebted to Plaintiff through a divorce proceeding, but that he sought to hinder collection by transferring his real property into a revocable trust, the Fred Sallworth, Jr. Revocable Trust, for which Defendant Bruce Stallworth is trustee. Plaintiff further alleges that Fred’s real property was transferred to Bruce.

Defendant Bruce Stallworth now seeks a protective order allowing him not to respond to discovery until the Court rules on his motion for judgment on the pleadings, which he contends will end this case.

Good cause must be shown for the protective order, and the issuance and formulation of the protective order are within the Court’s discretion. (See, e.g., Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 106-7; Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.)

The Motion is denied because the Court already ruled on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 24, 2023. The Court’s ruling was to grant the motion, with thirty days leave to amend. The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to delay discovery while further pleadings and demurrers are asserted.

The Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.