Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03544, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03544    Hearing Date: May 24, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/24/24

Case #23CHCV03544

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Demurrer filed on 3/25/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Floreen Essa as Administrator of the Estate of Leonard Rasho

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Anita Abraham Rasho

Demurrer is to the entire complaint on rejected claim.

RULING: The hearing on the demurrer will be continued. 

On 11/17/23, Plaintiff Anita Abraham Rasho (Plaintiff) filed the underlying “Complaint on Rejected Claim” against Defendant Floreen Essa, as Administrator for the Estate of Leonard Rasho (Defendant). 

No proof of service for the summons and complaint has been filed.  However, on 3/25/24, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to the complaint.  No proof of service for the demurrer has been filed and no opposition or other response to the demurrer had been filed when the Court first reviewed the matter in preparation for the hearing.  Additionally, no declaration has been filed indicating that Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff before filing the instant demurrer as required by CCP 430.41.  See CCP 430.41(a)(3).  Therefore, the Court’s initial tentative ruling was to place the matter off calendar.

However, upon further review of the file, the Court noticed that an opposition to the demurrer had been filed in the afternoon of 5/22/24, seven court days late and three court days after a reply was due to be filed and served.  CCP 1005(b).  The opposition to the demurrer includes both procedural arguments (untimeliness of the demurrer and failure to serve the demurrer) and substantive arguments.   

The hearing on the demurrer will be continued so that Defendant can file and serve a reply to the opposition.  The Court notes that the proof of service attached to the opposition indicates that it was served on Defendant’s counsel by email; however, no email address for Defendant’s counsel is set forth in the proof of service.  A reply is due to be filed and properly served at least 5 court days before the continued hearing date.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the opposition in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with court rules and/or failure to properly and/or timely serve and/or file documents in the future may result in matters being continued, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions. 

Finally, the Court notes that although Defendant reserved the hearing as a Demurrer – with Motion to Strike, a motion to strike has not been filed.