Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03742, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03742    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: G

Defendants Golden Gate Finance, Inc. and Daqing Wang’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Puente Hills Business Center II, L.P.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Golden Gate Finance, Inc. and Daqing Wang’s Demurrer to Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendants Golden Gate Finance, Inc.’s counsel and Defendant Daqing Wang are 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 (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the Demurrer.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of lease agreement. In January 2022, Plaintiff Puente Hills Business Center II, L.P. (Puente Hills) entered into a lease agreement with Defendant Golden Gate Finance, Inc. (Golden Gate) in which Golden Gate agreed to rent a property in the City of Industry from Puente Hills for a five-year term. In support of the lease, Defendant Daqing Wang executed a written guaranty. Subsequently in October 2023, Puente Hills alleges Golden Gate breached the lease agreement by vacating the City of Industry property and failing to pay further rent.

On December 4, 2023, Puente Hills filed a complaint against Golden Gate, Wang, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of lease, (2) breach of written guaranty, and (3) common counts.

On April 22, 2024, Golden Gate and Wang filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for May 28, 2024, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Golden Gate and Wang demur to Puente Hills’s second cause of action (breach of written guaranty) and third cause of action (common counts). 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, Wang attempted to meet and confer by sending an email to Puente Hills’s counsel on March 21, 2024. (Wang Decl.) Because email communications are not code-compliant means of meeting and conferring, the Court finds Golden Gate and Wang have failed to adequately meet and confer. Thus, a continuance of the hearing on their demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

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

Golden Gate’s counsel and Wang are also ordered to meet and confer with Puente Hills’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.