Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV01137, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01137, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01137 Hearing Date: February 1, 2024 Dept: G

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Catherine Garcia and Jose Garcia

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ 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 a lemon law action. On April 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Catherine Garcia and Jose Garcia filed a complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and Does 1-10, alleging a single cause of action for breach of express warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act. On November 7, the court granted Honda’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Garcias’ Complaint.

On November 17, 2023, the Garcias filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same cause of action.

On December 4, 2023, Honda filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the demurrer is set for February 1, 2024, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Honda demurs to the Garcia’ entire FAC. 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, Honda’s counsel filed a declaration stating counsel attempted to meet and confer telephonically with the Garcias’ counsel between May 2023 and September 28, 2023, with regards to the Garcias’ original Complaint. (Workman Decl., ¶ 4-6.) But counsel does not describe any code-compliant attempt to meet and confer after the court granted Honda’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 7 and after the Garcias filed the operative FAC on November 17. Because Honda’s counsel has not stated any meet-and-confer efforts occurred with respect to the present demurrer, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Honda’s demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

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

Honda’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with the Garcias’ 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.