Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03831, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV03831    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Lori Lonchin Chuang’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Yueh Chun Tseng

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Lori Lonchin Chuang’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’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 an action to quiet title and for negligence. Plaintiff Yueh Chun Tseng alleges Tseng is the sole owner of a property in Walnut. In March 2020, Tseng alleges Defendant Lori Lonchin Chuang notarized Tseng’s signature on a grant deed for the Walnut property when Tseng never appeared before Chuang to sign any documents. In April 2020, Tseng alleges Defendant Randy Chan recorded an illegitimate grant deed that claimed ownership of Tseng’s property.

On December 11, 2023, Tseng filed a complaint against Chan, Chuang, and Does 1-25, alleging causes of action for (1) quiet title and (2) negligence.

On February 1, 2024, Tseng filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On April 2, 2024, Chan filed a cross-complaint against Tseng, Chuang, and Roes 1-20, alleging a single cause of action for equitable lien.

On April 9, 2024, Chuang filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-50, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) conversion, (3) equitable indemnity, and (4) equitable contribution.

On May 9, 2024, Chuang filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for June 20, 2024, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Chuang demurs to Tseng’s second cause of action for negligence. 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, Chuang’s counsel states counsel first attempted to set up a telephonic meet and confer conference on April 29, 2024. (Feazell Decl., ¶ 9.) After being advised Tseng’s counsel was unavailable, Tseng’s counsel and Chuang’s counsel attempted to meet and confer over email on May 1, 2024. (Feazell Decl., ¶ 10.) Because email communications are not code-compliant means of meeting and conferring and counsel’s declaration does not state if counsel held telephonic discussions on May 1, the Court finds parties have failed to adequately meet and confer. Thus, a continuance of the hearing on their demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

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

Chuang’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Tseng’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.