Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 24PSCV02094, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02094, Date: 2024-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02094 Hearing Date: November 7, 2024 Dept: G

Defendants Jiefeng Cao and Everflow Renovations’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Hubert Co and Linh Trac

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Jiefeng Cao and Everflow Renovations’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint are CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendants Jiefeng Cao and Everflow Renovations’ counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs Hubert Co and Linh Trac’s counsel regarding the Demurrer and Motion to Strike 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 and Motion to Strike.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for contractual fraud. In July 2023, Plaintiffs Hubert Co and Linh Trac hired Defendants Jiefeng Cao and Everflow Renovations (Everflow) to renovate a property in San Gabriel. Subsequently, they allege Cao and Everflow failed to complete the renovations on time and demanded extra payments. They also allege the renovations were substandard and defective.

On June 28, 2024, Co and Trac filed a complaint against Cao; Everflow; Yecai Zhou; ZH Excellent Construction, Inc.; and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of state contractor’s license law; (2) declaratory relief; (3) violation of Civil Code sections 1689.5 to 1689.14 and Business and Professions Code section 7163; (4) negligence; (5) breach of implied warranty/covenant to perform work in a good and competent manner; (6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 7160; (7) fraud; (8) constructive fraud; and (9) attempted extortion.

On September 23, 2024, Cao and Everflow filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. A hearing on the present motions is set for November 7, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on November 21, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Cao and Everflow demur to Co and Trac’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, Cao and Everflow’s counsel attempted to meet and confer by sending emails to Co and Trac’s counsel. But emails are not code-compliant means of meeting and conferring. Furthermore, Cao and Everflow’s counsel fails to point to any attempt to contact opposing counsel by telephone. Because counsel failed to make sufficient efforts to meet and confer with opposing counsel, a continuance of the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Cao and Everflow’s demurrer and motion to strike are CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Cao and Everflow’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Co and Trac’s counsel regarding the demurrer and motion to strike 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.