Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02239, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02239    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: G

Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and D. Longo, LLC’s Demurrer and Judgment on the Pleadings to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Brian Jonathan Jimenez and Bertha Jimenez

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and D. Longo, LLC’s Demurrer and Judgment on the Pleadings to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and D. Longo, LLC’s Counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs Brian Jonathan Jimenez and Bertha Jimenez’s Counsel regarding the Demurrer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 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 for Judgment on the Pleadings.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action. In February 2021, Plaintiffs Brian Jonathan Jimenez and Bertha Jimenez purchased a certified pre-owned 2020 Toyota Camry from Defendant D. Longo, LLC, doing business as Longo Toyota. The Jimenez Plaintiffs allege the subject vehicle was covered by warranties issued by Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota). Subsequently, the Jimenez Plaintiffs allege the subject vehicle presented with numerous defects.

On July 11, 2024, the Jimenez Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Toyota, Longo Toyota, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (2) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq., (4) violation of Vehicle Code section 11713, (5) violation of Vehicle Code section 11713.18, (6) declaratory relief, and (7) breach of express and implied warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act).

On August 21, 2024, the Jimenez Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On October 28, 2024, Toyota and Longo Toyota filed the present demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing on the present motions is set for December 10, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on December 11, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Toyota and Longo Toyota demur to the Jimenez Plaintiffs’ 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, Toyota and Longo Toyota’s counsel filed a declaration stating counsel met and conferred through a letter dated September 20, 2024. (Guillot Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Because written correspondence is not a code-compliant means of meeting and conferring, a continuance of the hearing on the demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Toyota and Longo Toyota’s demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings are CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Toyota and Longo Toyota’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with the Jimenez Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings 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 for judgment on the pleadings.