Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00022805-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2021-00022805-CU-BT-CTL ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS COX [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant John H. Cox's demurrer is OVERRULED, and Defendant John Cox for Governor 2021, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED without prejudice.

The court will not overlook the multiple procedural infirmities with Defendants' motion. First and most importantly, there is no basis or precedent for Defendants' tactic of combining two separate motions (one of which is technically an objection to the pleadings) brought by two separate parties under two separate statutory provisions. (Compare Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10 et seq. with Code Civ. Proc., § 438.) The tactic is also contrary to this court's local rules. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.1.19.A ['Any party, or attorney for a party, who desires to have any demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause set for hearing must reserve a hearing date through the online reservation system . . .

Failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in the demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause hearing not being heard.'].) The 'motion' is deniable on this basis alone.

Second, the California Rules of Court require that '[e]ach ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses.' (CRC 3.1320, subd. (a).) A separate subdivision of Rule 3.1320 specifies that a 'party filing a demurrer must serve and file therewith a notice of hearing that must specify a hearing date . . . .' (CRC 3.1320, subd. (c).) This suggests that the demurrer, the notice of demurrer, and the memorandum in support of the demurrer are all intended to be separate documents or at least separately identified sections. But here, Defendant John H. Cox failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.1320, subdivision (a), by failing to include the demurrer either as a separate document, or as a separately identified section. (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 430.60 ['A demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.'].) Third, Defendants' combined notice failed to state the (separate) legal grounds for each aspect of the motion. (CRC 3.1110, subd. (a) ['A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.'].) Finally, the court rejects Defendants' attempt to correct the above deficiencies, which effectively involve defective notice, by filing erratas a week before the hearing. Defective notice cannot be cured in this manner, and the new notice and demurrer are otherwise untimely, as they were filed and served less than 16 court days before the noticed hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) For these reasons, the 'demurrer' is overruled and the motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied without prejudice.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3114030  19 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS COX  37-2021-00022805-CU-BT-CTL If the tentative is confirmed, the minute order will be the order of the court, and Defendant John Cox has 10 days from entry of the order to answer the first amended complaint.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3114030  19