Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00975, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00975    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant State of California’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Sonia Moreno

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant State of California’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant State of California’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff Sonia Moreno’s counsel regarding the present 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 a premises liability action. In October 2022, Plaintiff Sonia Moreno was walking down a sidewalk along West San Bernardino Road in West Covina when Moreno allegedly tripped and fell because of an uncovered pipe. Moreno’s fall allegedly resulted in physical injuries that required medical treatment.

On April 4, 2023, Moreno filed a complaint against the City of West Covina (West Covina), the City of Azusa (Azusa), the State of California (the State), and Does 1-30, alleging the following causes of action: (1) premises liability and (2) personal injury against a public entity or its employee.

On September 29, 2023, Moreno and West Covina stipulated to the dismissal of the second cause of action against West Covina.

On October 30, 2023, the State filed the present demurrer. At least five days prior to filing the demurrer, the State’s counsel allegedly met and conferred with Moreno’s counsel. (Thomas Decl., ¶ 2.)

A hearing on the demurrer and a case management conference are set for December 7, 2023.

ANALYSIS

The State demurs to Moreno’s entire Complaint. For the following reasons, the court finds the 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 State’s counsel filed a declaration stating the parties met and conferred. But 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, while the form declaration allowed for the declarant to choose their form of meeting and conferring, counsel failed to check either the in-person option or telephonic option. Thus, the court finds a continuance to further meet and confer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

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