Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00773, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV00773 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Dept: G
Defendants LoveLACars.com, Siqi Liao Zhao, and Boyi Zhao’s
Demurrer to Complaint
Respondent: Plaintiff Qinghua Liu
TENTATIVE
RULING
Defendants LoveLACars.com, Siqi Liao Zhao, and Boyi
Zhao’s Demurrer to Complaint is CONTINUED to a
date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).
Defendants’ 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
On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff Qinghua Liu filed a complaint
against Defendants LoveLACars.com, Siqi Liao Zhao, Boyi Zhao, Qiutai Wang, and
Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) assault, (2) battery,
(3) civil conspiracy, (4) negligence, (5) breach of contract, (6) non-payment
of overtime or double-time wages, (7) pay stub violations, (8) unfair business
practices, and (9) wrongful constructive termination.
On May 13, 2024, LoveLACars.com and the Zhaos filed the
present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for July 2, 2024. A
case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set
for August 1, 2024.
ANALYSIS
LoveLACars.com and the Zhaos demur to Liu’s entire Complaint. 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, LoveLACars.com and the Zhaos’s
counsel stated counsel had a “meet and confer” with Liu’s counsel on May 2,
2024, and was told a response would be forthcoming. (Wang Decl., ¶ 2.) But
counsel does not describe how counsel met and conferred, including whether
counsel met and conferred telephonically, in-person, or over video conference. Furthermore,
counsel’s subsequent attempts to request a response by email are insufficient
as counsel does not appear to have made any attempt to call Liu’s counsel. Because the Court finds parties have failed to adequately meet and
confer, a continuance of the hearing on their demurrer is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, LoveLACars.com and the Zhaos’s
demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in
Department G (Pomona).
LoveLACars.com and the Zhaos’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Liu’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.