Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV25649, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25649    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (“Ralphs”)  

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is an action arising from Plaintiff Brian Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) being assaulted at a grocery store in November 2022. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Ralphs Grocery Company, Doe Company, John Doe, and DOES 1 through 10 (collectively “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for: (1) civil assault and battery, (2) false imprisonment, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligence.

On December 29, 2023, Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (“Ralphs”) filed and served a demurrer to the first, second, and third causes of action in the complaint.

Also, on December 29, 2023, Defendant Ralphs filed and served a motion to strike punitive damages allegations from the complaint.  

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) civil assault and battery, (2) false imprisonment, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligence.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either the demurrer or the motion to strike.

The Effect of the FAC

          “An amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints.” (Malear v. State (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 213, 221, internal quotations omitted.) Where an amended complaint is filed “the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment.” (Ibid.) “The amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment.” (JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.) “[T]he filing of an amended complaint renders moot a demurrer to the original complaint.” (Ibid.) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court . . . after a demurrer . . . is filed but before the demurrer . . . is heard . . . if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472.)

          Here, Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike are directed at the complaint. Plaintiff, however, has filed the FAC which is now the operative pleading in this action. The complaint no longer has any effect as a pleading. Thus, the demurrer and motion to strike filed by Defendant are MOOT.

          Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike are MOOT and are taken OFF-CALENDAR.

II.          CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike are MOOT and are taken OFF-CALENDAR due to the filing of the FAC. Defendant may challenge the FAC by demurrer or motion to strike.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

      Dated this 31st day of January 2024