Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 21PSCV00516 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00516, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00516 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: G

Defendants Bingwei Guan and Yudan Li’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Yuzheng Chen

Defendants Bingwei Guan and Yudan Li’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Yuzheng Chen

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Longji Guan and Xiuhua Liang’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are CONTINUED TO April 13, 2023, 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).

Defendants’ counsel is also ordered meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the Demurrer and Motion to Strike and file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a landlord-tenant dispute. In July 2020, Plaintiff Yuzheng Chen entered into a lease agreement with Longji Guan (Guan) in which Plaintiff agreed to lease a property in Rowland Heights to Longji Guan for a one-year term in exchange for monthly rent of $2,500. Plaintiff alleges Longji Guan and Longji Guan’s family members did not pay rent under their agreement from May 2021 to July 2021.

On June 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Longji Guan, Xiuhua Liang, Angeles, and Does 1-3 alleging breach of contract. On October 4, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging the same cause of action against the same defendants and adding Bingwei Guan, Yudan Li, and Does 4-5 as additional defendants.

On November 22, 2021, Longji Guan, Xiuhua Liang, Bingwei Guan, and Yudan Li filed a demurrer and motion to strike to Plaintiff’s FAC. On January 11, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer as to Bingwei Guan and Yudan Li. The court also took judicial notice of a small claims action between Plaintiff and Defendants that was currently being appealed (Case No. 21WCSC00555) and stayed the action pending disposition of that case.

On September 21, 2022, the court held a status conference and noted the small claims action had concluded with a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff. Accordingly, the court set a hearing on Defendants’ demurrer for December 14. On December 14, the court granted a motion by Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) by January 11, 2023 and deemed Longji Guan and Xiuhua Liang’s demurrer moot.

On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a SAC against Bingwei Guan and Yudan Li (collectively, Defendants), alleging the same cause of action for breach of contract. On February 28, Defendants filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. A hearing and case management conference are set for March 21.

ANALYSIS

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s SAC for breach of contract, arguing (1) is a sham pleading and (2) it fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. For the following reasons, the court continues the hearing.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) 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.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.)

Discussion

Prior to filing a demurrer, the moving party is required to meet and confer telephonically or in-person with the opposing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) While Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(4) makes clear failing to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule a demurrer, courts “are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process” and if the court determines “no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355 & fn. 3.)

In this case, Defendants’ counsel admits counsel failed to meet and confer because (1) the SAC was untimely filed and (2) such efforts would have failed based on Plaintiff’s prior behavior. (Evans Decl., ¶ 4-6.) With regards to the first argument, the court notes Plaintiff’s SAC was not filed by the January 11 deadline mandated by the court. However, neither Defendants’ demurrer or motion to strike challenge Plaintiff’s SAC on this ground. Furthermore, because the thirty day period to file a responsive pleading does not begin until Defendants were served with SAC, which purportedly did not happen, it was not impracticable for Defendants’ counsel to meet and confer with Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40.) Lastly, the court finds Defendants’ counsel’s vague assertion regarding the SAC and “Plaintiff’s prior behavior” insufficient grounds to avoid the code requirements for filing a demurrer. Accordingly, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and motion to strike are CONTINUED TO April 13, 2023, 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).

Defendants’ counsel is also ordered meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the demurrer and motion to strike and file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.