Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

JUDITH COLLIE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARACELLY SANTOYO,

Defendant.

Case No.: 23STCV24772

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Complaint Filed: 10/11/23

Trial Date: N/A

Hearing date: May 2, 2024

Moving Party: Defendant Aracely Santoyo

Responding Party: Plaintiff Judith Collie

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

The court has considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

The hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike filed by Defendant Aracely Santoyo is CONTINUED to Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 8:30 AM in this department so that the parties can engage in meet and confer discussions. Defendant has not satisfied the meet and confer requirement pursuant to CCP §§ 430.41 and 435.5.

Background

This is an action arising from the alleged wrongful possession of a mobilehome. On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff Judith Collie (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Claim and Delivery against Defendant Aracelly Santoyo.

On December 14, 2023, a Notice of Related Case was filed indicating that the instant action was related to Aracely Santoyo v. Judith Collie, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV07423 (the “Underlying Action”), which was filed on February 25, 2021 and is pending in Department 45 of this Court.

On January 17, 2024, Defendant Aracely Santoyo (“Defendant”), who indicates that she was erroneously sued and served as “Aracelly Santoyo,” filed and served the instant demurrer to the Complaint, as well as a motion to strike.

On February 1, 2024, the Court issued an order deeming the instant action and the Underlying Action as related cases with the Underlying Action being the lead case. (02/01/24 Minute Order.)

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a combined opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike, to which Defendant replied on April 25, 2024.

Judicial Notice

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453.

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the moving party must meet and

confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) “Any determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer” or to grant or deny a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(4), 435.5.)

In support of the demurrer and motion to strike, counsel for Defendant, Yasmine Tabatabai (“Tabatabai”), provides a declaration. Counsel declares the following: on January 17, 2024, she sent correspondence to Plaintiff explaining that in the interest of time, Defendant would need to file her Demurrer and Motion to Strike with the Court, and provided Plaintiff with the legal and factual grounds in support thereof so the parties could discuss. (Tabatabai Decls., ¶ 3.) Counsel indicated that she would be willing to take the motion off-calendar if Plaintiff agreed to dismiss her Complaint within a reasonable time (by 5:00 PM on January 24, 2024). (Tabatabai Decls., ¶ 3.) Counsel states that she has and will continue to make good faith attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff to discuss the Demurrer and Motion to Strike and to resolve the issues raised in the motions prior to the hearing. (Tabatabai Decls., ¶ 3.) In her supplemental declaration in connection with the reply brief, Ms. Tabatabai does not set forth any meet and confer efforts.

The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has not been met as there was not a meet and confer discussion in person, by telephone, or by video conference. Based on the declaration of counsel, no meet and confer discussions have occurred between Ms. Tabatabai and Plaintiff, who is representing herself in pro per. Thus, the meet and confer requirement has not been satisfied.

Due to the meet and confer requirement not being met, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike. The Court continues the hearing on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike to Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 8:30 AM in this department. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer in compliance with CCP §§ 430.41 and 435.5. Defendant is ordered to file a declaration satisfying the meet and confer requirement at least five court days before the continued hearing date.

This department strictly enforces the meet and confer requirement prior to ruling on a demurrer or motion to strike. As such, due to the insufficient meet and confer, the Court will not assess the merits of the demurrer or motion to strike at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated: May 2, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court