Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02379, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02379    Hearing Date: February 11, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC’s Demurrer to the Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC’s Demurrer to the Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC’s Counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs Daniel Perez Perez, Daniel Perez Vasquez, and Juan Carlos Perez Vasquez’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 personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. On July 24, 2024, Plaintiffs Daniel Perez Perez, Daniel Perez Vasquez, and Juan Carlos Perez Vasquez (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendants EAN Holdings, LLC (EAN Holdings), Armando Chacon, and Does 1-50, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On January 10, 2025, EAN Holdings filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for February 11, 2025, along with a CMC and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on March 11, 2025.

ANALYSIS

EAN Holdings demurs to Plaintiffs’ 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, EAN Holdings’ counsel has provided a declaration stating counsel made several attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel by email. (Stone Decl., ¶ 7.) Because emails are not a code-compliant form of meeting and conferring, a continuance of the hearing on the demurrer is appropriate for parties to further meet and confer.

CONCLUSION

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

EAN Holdings’ counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ 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.