Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01111, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01111    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Airbnb, Inc.’s Demurrer

Respondent: Plaintiff Kimberly Costley

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Airbnb, Inc.’s Demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant Airbnb, Inc.’s Counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff Kimberly Costley’s Counsel regarding the Demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the Demurrer.

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability action. In October 2022, Plaintiff Kimberly Costley slipped and fell at a property in Rowland Heights that was allegedly owned, maintained, managed, or operated by Defendants Vacationland LLC (Vacationland) and Valerie Koh.

On April 8, 2024, Costley filed a complaint against Vacationland, Koh, and Does 1-50, alleging causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.

On June 28, 2024, Costley amended the Complaint to replace Doe 1 with Defendant Airbnb, Inc. (Airbnb).

On July 8, 2024, Costley amended the Complaint to replace Doe 2 with Defendant RVB.

On October 7, 2024, Airbnb filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for December 10, 2024, along with a case management conference/status conference re: ADR and OSC Re: Default/Default Judgment on February 27, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Airbnb demurs to Costley’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, Airbnb’s counsel provided a declaration stating counsel met and conferred with Costley’s counsel via email from September 6, 2024, to October 7, 2024. (Ly Decl., ¶ 3.) However, meet and confer efforts through email do not satisfy the code requirements for a proper meet and confer which must take place “in person or by telephone.”  Therefore, a continuance of the hearing on the demurrer is appropriate for parties to further meet and confer pursuant to code.

CONCLUSION

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

Airbnb’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Costley’s counsel regarding the present demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the demurrer.