Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03546, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03546    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Donald Turner’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Donald Turner’s Demurrer to 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 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

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff Hector Serna filed a complaint against Defendant Donald Turner alleging breach of contract.

On December 21, 2023, Turner filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing the present demurrer, Turner’s counsel attempted to meet and confer by sending a letter to Serna on December 18. (Mansour Decl., ¶ 3.)

A hearing on the present demurrer is set for January 30, 2024, with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service set for April 10.

ANALYSIS

Turner demurs to Serna’s entire 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, Turner’s counsel filed a declaration stating counsel attempted to meet and confer by sending a letter to Serna. (Mansour Decl., ¶ 3.) Because Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 places the burden to meet and confer telephonically or in-person on Turner’s counsel, the court finds this attempt insufficient as Turner’s counsel did not attempt to reach out to Serna over the telephone or in-person and a letter is not a code-compliant form of meeting and conferring. Thus, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Turner’s demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

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

Turner’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Serna 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.