Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV00922, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00922, Date: 2023-11-02 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 a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV00922 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Trinhnology Enterprise, Corp.; Howard Trinh; and Cloud & Sky Enterprises’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint

Respondent: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Philip Chatalos

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Trinhnology Enterprise, Corp.; Howard Trinh; and Cloud & Sky Enterprises’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Trinhnology Enterprise, Corp.; Howard Trinh; and Cloud & Sky Enterprises’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Defendant/Cross-Complainant Philip Chatalos’s counsel regarding the Demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. In August 2019, Plaintiff Trinhnology Enterprise, Corp. (Trinhnology) entered into an alleged oral agreement with Defendant Philip Chatalos in which Trinhnology agreed to pay a monthly design fee and sales commissions to Chatalos in exchange for Chatalos’s sale of Trinhnology’s clothing products. In September 2022, Trinhnology ended its business relationship with Chatalos. Trinhnology alleges Chatalos breached their agreement by failing to repay advances on Chatalos’s commission that Trinhnology had paid. Trinhnology also alleges Chatalos overcharged Trinhnology for product samples or requested reimbursement for samples that had not been purchased. Last, Trinhnology alleges Trinhnology alleges Chatalos failed to follow up with a client to ensure they made payments for previous orders and reinstated orders that had been cancelled.

On March 29, 2023, Trinhnology filed a complaint against Chatalos and Does 1-30, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of oral contract, (2) common counts, (3) breach of oral contract, (4) common counts, (5) fraud, (6) negligence, (7) common counts, (8) negligence, and (9) negligence.

On April 21, 2023, Chatalos filed a cross-complaint against Trinhnology, Howard Quoc Trinh, Cloud & Sky Enterprises (Cloud & Sky), and Does 1-50, alleging (1) breach of contract and (2) a violation of the California Independent Wholesale Sales Representative Contractual Relations Act. On July 11, Chatalos dismissed the cross-complaint without prejudice.

On November 2, 2023, after obtaining leave from the court, Chatalos filed a cross-complaint against Trinhnology, Howard Trinh, Cloud & Sky, and Does 1-50, alleging (1) breach of contract and (2) a violation of the California Independent Wholesale Sales Representative Contractual Relations Act.

On January 10, 2024, Trinhology, Trinh, and Cloud & Sky (collectively, Trinh Defendants) filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing, the Trinh Defendants’ counsel states counsel met and conferred telephonically with Chatalos’s counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Strecker Decl., ¶ 2.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for February 7, 2024, with a case management conference set for April 16.

ANALYSIS

The Trinh Defendants demur to Chatalos’s entire Cross-Complaint. 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, the Trinh Defendants’ counsel filed a declaration stating counsel met and conferred telephonically with Chatalos’s counsel. (Strecker Decl., ¶ 2(a).) But in response, Chatalos’s counsel filed a declaration stating the Trinh Defendants’ counsel did not met and confer telephonically before filing the present demurrer. (Bollinger Decl., ¶ 6.) Instead, on January 10, 2024, the Trinh Defendants’ counsel sent a meet-and-confer email that claimed the telephonic meet-and-confer efforts between counsel in June 2023 were sufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirements. (Bollinger Decl., Ex. A.)

Because there is no evidence that the Trinh Defendants’ counsel met and conferred regarding the operative Cross-Complaint after it was filed in November 2023, the court finds counsel failed to adequately meet and confer and finds a continuance of the hearing on the Trinh Defendants’ demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Trinh Defendants’ demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

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