Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00611, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00611    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant City of El Monte’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Aurelia Robles’s First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Aurelia Robles

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant City of El Monte’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Aurelia Robles’s 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 personal injury action. In March 2022, Plaintiff Aurelia Robles was attempting to board a bus allegedly operated by Defendant City of El Monte (the City) with a walker when Robles fell. Robles alleges the bus’s operator had refused to lower the bus’s access ramp which forced Robles to use the stairs despite Robles’s use of a walker.

On February 29, 2024, Robles filed a complaint against the City and Does 1-100, alleging causes of action for (1) negligent operation of a motor vehicle for which public entity is responsible, (2) failure to discharge mandatory duty, and (3) respondeat superior.

On June 3, 2024, Robles filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On July 2, 2024, the City filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for August 6, 2024, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

The City demurs to Robles’s third cause of action for respondeat superior. 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, the City’s counsel attempted to meet and confer by sending an email to Robles’s counsel on June 21, 2024. (Steinberg Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Because email communications are not code-compliant means of meeting and conferring and counsel’s declaration does not state if counsel held telephonic discussions, 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, the City’s demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

The City’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Robles’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.