Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 23-01307454, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

1) Demurrer to Amended Complaint

2) Case Management Conference

The unopposed Demurrer by Defendants Karen Laskey and Michael Laskey (collectively, “Defendants”) to the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Mark D. Evans (“Plaintiff”) is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Service was timely and good. No opposition was filed.

Failure to oppose the demurrer may be construed as abandonment of the claims.  (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1, 20 (“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County's demurrer to this portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal.  Accordingly, we deem plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue.”); see also Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 (trial court was justified in denying post-trial motions for failure to provide adequate memorandum; “Rule 3.1113 rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide.”)  Additionally, the court may construe the absence of a memorandum as waiver of all grounds not supported.  (CRC 3.1113(a).)  

Defendants are ordered to give notice.