Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 23PSCV00802 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00802, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00802 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: G

Defendants Ford Motor Company and Puente Hills Ford, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Yuquan Li

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Ford Motor Company and Puente Hills Ford, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint¿is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing.

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

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff Yuquan Li entered into a warranty contract with Ford Motor Company (Ford) and Puente Hills Ford, LLC (Puente Hills Ford) by purchasing a 2017 Ford Explorer. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff’s vehicle presented with defects, malfunctions, and nonconformities.

On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Ford and Puente Hills Ford (collectively, Defendants) as well as Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (4) negligent repair.

On April 19, 2023, Defendants filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on April 5, Defendants’ counsel discussed the demurrer with Plaintiff’s counsel. (Proudfoot Decl., ¶ 4.)

ANALYSIS

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s third cause of action (violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200). 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.)

Discussion

In this case, Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration stating counsel discussed the demurrer with Plaintiff’s counsel on April 5, 2023. (Proudfoot Decl., ¶ 4.) However, a meet-and-confer declaration must state “[t]he means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3)(A).) Here, counsel’s declaration does not meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a) as it does not state how parties met and conferred. Thus, the court finds parties did not adequately meet and confer and finds a continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is CONTINUED TO a date to be determined at the hearing.