Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 24NWCV00420, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV00420, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV00420 Hearing Date: November 14, 2024 Dept: C

BREWER v. WEEMS

CASE NO.: 24NWCV00420

HEARING: 11/14/24

Defendant JULIA WEEMS’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

Court Clerk to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of November 12, 2024.

This action sounding in defamation was filed by Plaintiff RYEAN BREWER ( in pro per) (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant JULIA WEEMS (in pro per) (“Defendant”) on February 13, 2024.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly and maliciously made false statements in a separate restraining order filing that resulted in a defamation of Plaintiff’s character, and portrayed Plaintiff in a false light.

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Defamation;

(2) False Light;

(3) Abuse of Process;

(4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendant generally demurs to each cause of action.

The Court notes that the Defendant failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements of CCP §430.41. CCP §430.41(a) states that, before filing a demurrer, the Moving Party must engage in a specified meet and confer process with the party who filed the pleading at issue for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached as to the filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer/motion to strike. “[T]he demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference 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.” (CCP §430.41(a).) A declaration setting forth such meet and confer efforts must accompany the demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a)(3).) Here, no such declaration is attached to the moving papers.

In consideration of the merits, the Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s action was filed in retaliation to Defendant’s filing of a restraining order in a separate action. Consequently, Defendant argues that this action should be barred because Defendant has the right to file and seek a restraining order, and should not be subject to this lawsuit in response to her litigation activities.

It appears Defendant is arguing that, to the extent Plaintiff’s allegations stem from Defendant’s filing and seeking a restraining order against Plaintiff, Defendant’s litigation activities are privileged and constitutionally protected activities under the first amendment. These arguments raise factual and evidentiary considerations, which are improperly addressed at this stage in the litigation. The proper vehicle for resolution of this issue is via Special Motion to Strike—not a Demurrer.