Judge: Kimberly Knill, Case: 30-2020-01130079-CU-FR-CJC, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Omar and Gina Dauod Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

The demurrer to first amended complaint of defendants Omar Dauod and Gina Dauod is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

The Court considers the late-filed opposition. (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765.)

The Court does not consider the evidence filed with the reply. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1537–38.)

Plaintiff fails to allege she has direct and independent knowledge of the facts alleged in her First Amended Complaint. (Ins. Code, § 1871.7(h).) Plaintiff fails to “allege[] that [she] was a percipient witness to any of the alleged facts upon which his allegations are based.” (State of California v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 741, 757.) It is unclear what allegations, if any, are based on her direct and independent knowledge.

Defendants do not demonstrate the first amended complaint is barred by collateral estoppel because the action is not brought by the same parties or parties in privity. (Hernandez v. City of Pomona (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 501, 511.)  Defendants’ cite to California ex rel. TIG Ins. Co. v. Culpepper (2016 C.D. Cal.) 235 F.Supp.3d 1121 is improper, as this order was reversed.

If plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff is ordered to file a red-lined version and clean version of the second amended complaint.

Defendants to give notice.

Defendants James Ballidis and the Law Offices of Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

The demurrer to first amended complaint of defendants James Ballidis and The Law Offices of Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DENIED as unnecessary.

The Court does not consider Plaintiff’s impermissible “sur-reply” and accompanying late-filed request for judicial notice. (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765.)

Plaintiff fails to allege she has direct and independent knowledge of the facts alleged in her first amended complaint. (Ins. Code, § 1871.7(h).) Plaintiff fails to “allege[] that [she] was a percipient witness to any of the alleged facts upon which his allegations are based.” (State of California v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 741, 757.) It is unclear what allegations, if any, are based on her direct and independent knowledge.

Furthermore, plaintiff fails to plead a valid exception to Civil Code section 1714.10.

If plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff is ordered to file a red-lined version and clean version of the second amended complaint.

Defendants to give notice.

Defendants James Ballidis and the Law Offices of Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint

The motion to strike first amended complaint of defendants James Ballidis and The Law Offices of Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, is DENIED as moot.

Defendants to give notice.