Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01297, Date: 2024-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01297    Hearing Date: October 28, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Miguel Sahagun’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Lina Arboleda

Defendant Miguel Sahagun’s Motion to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages and Attorneys Fees of the First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Lina Arboleda

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Miguel Sahagun’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages and Attorney’s Fees of the First Amended Complaint are CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant Miguel Sahagun’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff Lina Arboleda’s counsel regarding the Demurrer and Motion to Strike and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for conversion. On February 2, 2024, Defendant Miguel Sahagun obtained a default judgment in an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff Lina Arboleda with regards to a property in El Monte. On February 21, 2024, Arboleda quit possession of the El Monte property following a lockout by the sheriff. Subsequently, Arboleda alleges Sahagun has refused to turn over the possession of Arboleda’s personal property that was left at the El Monte property. Instead, Sahagun has allegedly demanded Arboleda pay Sahagun money or sign a waiver of Arboleda’s right to sue.

On April 23, 2024, Arboleda filed a complaint against Sahagun and Does 1-15, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1983 to 1987, (2) civil extortion, (3) trespass to conversion, and (4) trespass to chattels.

On August 27, 2024, Arboleda filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1983 to 1987, (2) attempted civil extortion, (3) trespass to conversion, and (4) trespass to chattels.

On September 30, 2024, Sahagun filed the present demurrer. On October 7, 2024, Sahagun filed the present motion to strike. A hearing on the present motions is set for October 28, 2024, along with a case management conference on November 14, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Sahagun demurs to Arboleda’s entire FAC. 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, Sahagun’s counsel filed a declaration stating counsel attempted to meet and confer through email correspondence with Arboleda’s counsel. Because emails are not the proper means of meeting and conferring and counsel fails to describe any attempt at telephonic communication, the court finds these meet and confer attempts to be inadequate. Accordingly, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Sahagun’s demurrer and motion to strike is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Sahagun’s demurrer and motion to strike are CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona). Sahagun’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Arboleda’s counsel regarding the Demurrer and Motion to Strike and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.