Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00204, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00204    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 January 12, 2024¿¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      21TRCV00204

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Alan Hall v. City of Lawndale, et al.               .¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                   Defendant, City of Lawndale

¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff, Alan Hall

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       Not Set.

MOTION:¿                              (1) Demurrer

                                                (2) Motion to Strike

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) Demurrer is Continued due to the unexcused filing of an over-sized brief

                                                (2) Motion to Strike is Continued correspondingly

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On March 18, 2021, Plaintiff, Alan Hall (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, City of Lawndale (“Defendant”). On February 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On October 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (2) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and  (3) Harassment.

This Court previously sustained a demurrer and mooted a motion to strike on Plaintiff’s SAC on July 13, 2023. This Court also notes that on October 30, 2023, this Court GRANTED a motion allowing Plaintiff’s attorney relief from the representation of the Plaintiff.

Defendant, City of Lawndale (“City”) now files a demurrer to the TAC.   

B. Procedural¿¿ 

On October 30, 2023, City filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike. To date, no opposition has been filed. It is unclear whether Plaintiff has obtained another attorney. On January 10, 2024, City filed a notice of non-opposition.

II. CONTINUANCE ANALYSIS

            The Court turns City’s attention to California Rules of Court, Rule. 3.1113(d). This rule states that: “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” Moreover, a “party may apply to the court ex parte but with written notice of the application to the other parties, at least 24 hours before the memorandum is due, for permission to file a longer memorandum. The application must state reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit.” (Cal. Rules, Ct., Rule 3.1113(e). Here, the Court notes that City’s demurrer is seventeen (17) pages long – three pages over the stated limit. The Court also does not see anywhere in the motion, nor declaration, an application for permission to file a longer memorandum. As such, City’s demurrer is not code compliant. This Court will discuss whether City at the hearing the steps on whether City plans to re-file a code compliant motion.

            Further, this Court notes that City’s  Motion to Strike seeks to strike allegations regarding irrelevant, false, or improper matters. Because it appears that a majority of City’s Motion to Strike arguments hinge on the arguments made in the demurrer, the Court’s tentative ruling is to continue this motion as well.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, City’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike are CONTINUED to permit the service and filing of a Code-compliant brief.

City is ordered to provide notice.

¿¿¿