Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV24157, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 24STCV24157    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV24157 Atalie Quesada v. American Honda Motor

Monday, January 6, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

        This action arises from Defendant’s alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  On October 21, 2024, Defendant filed this demurrer and motion to strike the original complaint filed on September 18, 2024. On December 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

        Plaintiff can amend the complaint once as a matter of course "if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike." (Code Civ. Proc., § 472.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike were due on December 20, 2024, nine court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd. (b).) Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint on that date.

        Accordingly, the court takes off calendar the demurrer to and motion to strike as the original complaint is no longer operative. (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1144. [“It is well established that an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.”].)