Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03890, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV03890 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: January 10, 2025
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03890
CASE NAME: Onni Manhattan Towers Limited Partnership v. Matern Law Group, PC, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants, Onni Manhattan Towers Limited Partnership and Cross-Defendant, Onni California, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Matern Law Group, PC
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
MOTION: (1) Demurrer to Cross-Complaint
Tentative Rulings: (1) Onni’s Demurrer is CONTINUED to Thursday March 6, 2025, 9:00 a.m., to correct the Demurring party’s unexcused violation of the page limit maximum.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff, Onni Manhattan Towers Limited Partnership (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Matern Law Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, and DOES 1 through 10. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Guaranty; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Declaratory Relief RE Lease; and (5) Declaratory Relief RE Guaranty.
On September 18, 2024, Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Matern Law Group, PC filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants, Onni Manhattan Towers Limited Partnership, Onni California, LLC, and ROES 1 through 50. The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach Of Written Contract; (2) Breach Of The Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4) Negligence; (5) Unfair And Unlawful Business Practices; (6) An Accounting; (7) Money Had And Received; (8) Declaratory Relief.
Now, Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants, Onni Manhattan Towers Limited Partnership and Cross-Defendant Onni California LLC (collectively, “Onni”) file a Demurrer to the cross-complaint.
B. Procedural
On December 19, 2024, Onni filed its demurrer. On December 27, 2024, Matern Law Group, PC filed an opposition brief. On January 3, 2025 Onni filed a reply brief.
II. CONTINUANCE ANALYSIS:
Preliminarily, the Court CONTINUES the demurrer on the grounds that Onni has violated California Rule of Court 3.1113 (d). “Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” (CRC 3.1113, subd.(d).) Here, Defendants’ moving papers include a memorandum of points and authorities that is twenty-one (21) pages, clearly exceeding the fifteen (15) page limit. The Court is unaware of any application to file a longer memorandum pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subdivision (e). Despite the procedural defect being raised in the Opposition, Onni fails to address this procedural violation in its reply papers.
The Court will not rule on a demurrer that is – in violation of the California Rules of Court – six (6) pages or 40% longer than the rules allow for. The Court issues the following briefing schedule if Onni wishes to move forward with this motion: (1) Onni’s 15-page or less Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Demurrer is due on or before January 30, 2025; (2) Opposition to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer is due on or before by February 13, 2025; (3) Reply to Opposition of Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer is due on or before February 27, 2025. New hearing date: Thursday March 6, 2025, 9:00 a.m.