Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00801, Date: 2024-07-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00801    Hearing Date: July 17, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff Elham Patavani filed a verified complaint against Defendants Discover, Synchorny Bank, and AmEx, alleging one cause of action for violation of statutory duties. 

Defendant Discover Bank (“Defendant”) now demurs to the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), respectively.  The demurrer is unopposed. 

ANALYSIS

            As a threshold matter, Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that written notice of the motion and supporting papers be filed and served at least 16 court days prior to the hearing.  Here, although the body of the notice indicates the hearing is scheduled for July 17, the caption page of the notice of demurrer indicates to the contrary that the hearing is scheduled for July 27, which is a court holiday (Saturday).  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 10, 135.)    

            On May 2, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of errata, the caption page of which also indicates the hearing is scheduled for July 27.  Attached as Exhibit A to the notice of errata is a corrected demurrer, to which a table of contents and table of authorities were added.  The caption page of the corrected demurrer also indicates the hearing is scheduled for July 27.

            This conflicting information about when the hearing date is scheduled is objectively unclear and confusing, and especially in light of the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding as a self-represented litigant, the Court finds that Defendant has not provided Plaintiff adequate notice of the hearing date. 

            “[W]hen a litigant is self-represented, a judge has the discretion to take reasonable steps, appropriate under the circumstances and consistent with the law and the canons, to enable the litigant to be heard.”  (Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1434.)  “The judge cannot rely on the pro per litigants to know each of the procedural steps, to raise objections, to ask all the relevant questions of witnesses, and to otherwise protect their due process rights.”  (Ross v. Figueroa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 856, 861.)  “Providing access to justice for self-represented litigants is a priority for California courts.”  (California Rules of Court, rule 10.960(b).)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer for failure to provide Plaintiff adequate notice of the hearing.  Further, the Court orders Defendant to file and serve an Answer to the Complaint on or before July 31, 2024. 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  July 17, 2024                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court