Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 24STCV12023, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV12023, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12023 Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 Dept: 57

Plaintiffs' demurrer to the answer and cross-complaint is overruled for the following reasons. First, the demurrer fails to comply with the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1320(a) in that it does not set forth each ground for the demurrer in a separate paragraph stating whether there is an objection to the whole answer and cross-complaint or just specified defenses in the answer and allegations in the cross-complaint. Second, and relatedly, the demurrer is not intelligible. The Court cannot discern what is the subject/are the subjects of the demurrer. Third, as is apparent from Paragraph 4 in the "Opening Statement" of the demurrer and again in the "Prayer for Relief" section at the end of the demurrer, the Plaintiffs are essentially asking the Court to enter summary judgment for them, thereby ending the case. Plaintiffs have not, however, complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 437c governing motions for summary judgment.

The Court also notes that the Plaintiffs failed observe the page limit for memoranda in support of motions, which applies to demurrers. That limit is 15 pages. (California Rule of Court 3.1113(d); Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 7,1203, at p. 7(I)-55.) Plaintiffs’ demurrer was 38 pages long. Plaintiffs need to bear in mind going forward in this case that the Court has discretion to refuse to consider memoranda that exceeded the applicable page limit. (California Rule of Court 3.1113(g); id. Rule 3.1300 (d).) The Court did not exercise that discretion this time around in connection with the Plaintiffs’ excessively oversized memorandum