Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00014292-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  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  PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00014292-CU-PO-CTL BRENNAN VS KAPPA SIGMA FRATERNITY INCORPORATED [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Willem Quigley's demurrer to the first amended complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant's motion to strike the first amended complaint is DENIED.

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. The California Rules of Court also require that the notice for a motion to strike a portion of a pleading 'quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense,' and that such specifications 'must be numbered consecutively.' Here, Defendant did not comply with Rule 3.1320(a) and Rule 3.1322(a), as he failed to specify the grounds for his demurrer in either the notice or in a separate demurrer section, and he failed to specifically set forth in the notice of motion to strike the portions of the complaint sought to be stricken.

The court cannot overlook this disregard for the applicable procedural rules, which are designed to assist the court in managing its calendar and to conserve the court's time and other judicial resources.

Accordingly, Defendant's demurrer is overruled and his motion to strike is denied.

The court notes that its decision is based purely on procedural deficiencies, and therefore Defendant is not precluded from bringing a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the same substantive grounds relied on in the instant demurrer and motion to strike.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3034926  11