Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01221, Date: 2024-08-22 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: 24PSCV01221    Hearing Date: August 22, 2024    Dept: G

Defendants Yuning Su and Plus & Beyond Express, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Dynatrans, Inc, and Shaoyue Li

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Yuning Su and Plus & Beyond Express, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiffs’ 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 for fraud and conversion. In 2017, Plaintiff Dynatrans, Inc, (Dynatrans) hired Defendant Yuning Su. From 2022 to 2023, Dynatrans alleges Su mishandled and embezzled Dynatrans’s funds. After Su quit in November 2023, Su allegedly attempted to steal Dynatrans’s business for Defendant Plus & Beyond Express, LLC (P&B).

On April 16, 2024, Dynatrans and Shaoyue Li filed a complaint against Su, P&B, and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) actual interference with contractual relations, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, (4) conversion, (5) Penal Code section 496, (6) breach of loyalty pursuant to Labor Code sections 2860 and 2863, (7) intentional misrepresentation, (8) concealment, (9) false promise, (10) negligent misrepresentation, and (11) cancellation of instrument.

On July 12, 2024, the Su and P&B filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for August 22, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service.

ANALYSIS

Su and P&B demur to Dynatrans and Li’s first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh causes of action. 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

Here, Su and P&B’s counsel attempted to meet and confer by sending an email to Dynatrans and Li’s counsel on May 28, 2024. (Gross Decl., ¶ 3.) 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 the 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 Su and P&B’s demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

The Su and P&B’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Dynatrans and Li’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.