Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV00624 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00624, Date: 2023-02-15 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: 22PSCV00624 Hearing Date: February 15, 2023 Dept: G

Defendants ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc. and Emilio Villarba’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc.

Defendants ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc. and Emilio Villarba’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc. and Emilio Villarba’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint are CONTINUED TO April 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).

Defendants are ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the Demurrer and Motion to Strike and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing (on or before March 23, 2023).

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from an equipment lease agreement. On October 12, 2020, Thermo Fisher Financial Services, Inc. (Thermo Fisher) entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc. (Matias Clinical Lab), doing business as Health Care Providers Laboratory, in which Thermo Fisher agreed to finance and lease equipment to Matias Clinical Lab. On July 13, 2021, Thermo Fisher assigned the lease agreement to Plaintiff De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff alleges Matias Clinical Lab breached the agreement by failing to make monthly installment payments. On June 15, Plaintiff sent a written demand to Matias Clinical Lab that demanded Matias Clinical Lab repay the balance under the lease and return the leased equipment. Plaintiff further alleges Matias Clinical Lab refused to make further payments and return the equipment.

On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Matias Clinical Lab and Emilio Villarba (collectively, Defendants) as well as Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) possession of personal property, and (3) conversion.

On December 8, 2022, Defendants filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. Prior to filing on December 1, Defendants’ counsel “met and conferred” with Plaintiff’s counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Klaskin Decl., ¶ 2-3.)

A hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike and a case management conference are set for February 15, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s Complaint, arguing it fails to state a claim as to Plaintiff’s three causes of action. Defendants also move to strike Plaintiff’s request for daily interest. For the following reasons, the court finds parties did not adequately meet and confer.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), prior to filing a demurrer, “the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” This section further provides that “the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).)

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.)

Similarly, prior to filing a motion to strike, “the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 435.5, subd. (a).) This section further provides that “the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to being stricken and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(1).) However, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).)¿¿

Analysis

In this case, Defendants’ counsel described meet and confer efforts in three sentences as follows:

“On December 1, 2022 I met and conferred with Plaintiff’s attorney, Kevin P. Whiteford, Esq. regarding Defendants’ proposed Demurrer and Motion to Strike. Mr. Whiteford provided case authority for his opposition to Defendants’ proposed Demurrer and Motion to Strike. I found the case authority provided unpersuasive and therefore seek a hearing on said Demurrer and Motion to Strike.” (Klaskin Decl., ¶ 2-3.)

Counsel’s declaration fails to identify the manner in which this discussion took place. Because of the statutory requirement that meet and confer efforts be in-person or telephonic, the court cannot find parties adequately met and conferred. Accordingly, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Defendants ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc. and Emilio Villarba’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint are CONTINUED TO April 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., Dept. G (Pomona).