Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03075, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03075    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant The Internet Auto Group, Inc.’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Adam Dolce

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant The Internet Auto Group, Inc.’s Demurrer to 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 Plaintiff’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 on the Demurrer.

BACKGROUND

This is a contractual fraud action. In October 2023, Defendant The Internet Auto Group, Inc. (IAG) advertised a 2021 Polestar 2 Launch Edition for sale online at a price of $31,930. Plaintiff Adam Dolce saw the advertisement for the vehicle and visited IAG. At IAG, a representative told Dolce that the cost of the vehicle would be $35,600 after sales tax, official fees, and document processing charges. After agreeing to purchase the vehicle for that price in cash, Dolce alleges IAG then informed Dolce that the total price was over $41,000 based on two mandatory add-ons, including a theft-deterrent device priced at $1,995 and paint protection priced at $1,995. When Dolce objected to the add-ons, IAG offered to reduce the price to $37,000 and Dolce declined their offer.

On October 5, 2023, Dolce filed a complaint against Defendants Plug-In Auto and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) specific performance, (2) breach of contract, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (5) declaratory relief, and (6) civil conspiracy.

On November 20, 2023, Dolce filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against IAG and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of the CLRA, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) concealment, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) breach of contract, and (6) violation of Unfair Competition Law.

On March 1, 2024, IAG filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for March 20, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

IAG demurs to Dolce’s 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, IAG’s counsel failed to include a declaration describing any meet and confer efforts that took place prior to the filing of the instant demurrer. And to the extent the demurrer states IAG’s counsel met and conferred by sending a letter to Dolce’s counsel, a letter is not a code-compliant form of meeting and conferring. (Demurrer, p. 4:3-7.) Thus, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on IAG’s demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

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

IAG’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Dolce’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 on the demurrer.