Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03333, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03333, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03333 Hearing Date: March 19, 2024 Dept: G

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Arthur Clark and Maureen Clark

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ford Motor Company’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 October 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Arthur Clark and Maureen Clark filed a complaint against Defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford), Puente Hills Ford, and Does 1-10, alleging the following cases of action: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (5) concealment; and (6) negligent repair.

On December 1, 2023, Ford filed a demurrer to the Clarks’ Complaint. On January 3, 2024, the Clarks filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On February 6, 2024, Ford filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the demurrer is set for March 19, with a case management and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service set for March 28.

ANALYSIS

Ford demurs to the Clark’s first (violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d)), second (violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b)), third (violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3)), fourth (breach of implied warranty of merchantability), and fifth causes of action (concealment). 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, Ford’s counsel filed a declaration suggesting counsel met and conferred telephonically with the Clarks’ counsel on November 28, 2023, with regards to the Clarks’ original Complaint. (Patel Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) But counsel does not describe any code-compliant attempt to meet and confer after the Clarks filed the operative FAC on January 3, 2024. Because Ford’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 Ford’s demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

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

Ford’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with the Clarks’ 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.