Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 19STCV03592, Date: 2022-11-29 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 19STCV03592 Hearing Date: November 29, 2022 Dept: O
Defendant Premchand Prajapati’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Jessica Alvarez’s and Arnold Guerrero’s Complaint is DENIED.
Background
Plaintiffs Jessica Alvarez and Arnold Guerrero (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Prajapati moves the court for an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ FAC on the basis that he is deceased.
At the outset, Prajapati references a “request for judicial notice on file herein.” (Motion, 3:6.) On January 19, 2021, Prajapati filed a Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) of Prajapati’s death certificate. Prajapati’s RJN is granted.
“A motion to dismiss may be substituted for a demurrer as the first pleading. If denied, it is treated as an overruled demurrer.” (Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 299.) A demurrer may be made on grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) “[A] demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)
On November 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their FAC against Motel, Prajaprem Corporation and Prajapati. Plaintiffs have alleged that “[a]t all times mentioned herein . . . Prajapati, an individual, owns, manages, and operates the Prince Inn.” (FAC, ¶ 6.) All of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are directed against “All Defendants,” which necessarily includes Prajapati.
“[A] judgment for or against a dead person is void only if the plaintiff or defendant was dead before the action was begun. It is equally well settled that where a party dies subsequent to the commencement of the action and after the court has acquired personal jurisdiction over him, the entry of judgment against him is a ‘mere irregularity’ which renders the judgment voidable only and therefore immune from collateral attack.” (Woolley v. Seijo (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 615, 620.)
Plaintiffs have failed to provide the court with any authority or argument warranting a dismissal of Prajapati under the instant circumstances.
The motion is denied.