Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC04861, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC04861    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: 26

Chappell v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al.

DEMURRER TO ANSWER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq., 426.30, 428.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

PLAINTIFF ERICA CHAPPELL’S DEMURRER TO THE AMENDED ANSWER IS PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Erica Chappell (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq. and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. against Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC dba AT&T Air; Waypoint Resource Group; and Prince Parker & Associates, Inc., a Division of Waypoint Resource Group, LLC, on July 8, 2024. Defendants filed their Answer on August 9, 2024.

Thereafter Defendant filed an Amended Answer on August 13, 2024. On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrer to the Amended Answer. Defendants filed an opposition on September 6, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort is not sufficient. “As part of the meet and confer process, the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).) On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to defense counsel that merely restates each affirmative defense and then states that the defense is uncertain. (Demurrer, Robenzadeh Decl., Exh. B.) In fact, the meet and confer letter refers to the affirmative defenses in the Answer, not the Amended Answer. (Ibid.) This indicates that no true meet and confer took place with respect to the Amended Answer, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a).) Merely stating that the defenses are uncertain does not provide legal support for the purported deficiencies, as required by the meet and confer statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).) Furthermore, special demurrers are not permitted in the limited jurisdiction court, so challenging the defenses in the Amended Answer on the basis of uncertainty is improper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Finally, the meet and confer declaration does not mention failure to allege sufficient facts as one of the grounds for demurring to the Amended Answer, yet Plaintiff’s Demurrer is also brought on that basis. (Notice of Demurrer, p. 2:5-7.) Although an improper meet and confer effort is not grounds to overrule a Demurrer, the Court exercises its discretion to place the Demurrer off calendar for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the statute, which are a precondition to filing a demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)

Conclusion

PLAINTIFF ERICA CHAPPELL’S DEMURRER TO THE AMENDED ANSWER IS PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Court clerk to give notice.