Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV02988, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02988    Hearing Date: January 13, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant Karla Maria Vides Hernandez’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Soledad Urbina

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Karla Maria Vides Hernandez’s Demurrer to Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Defendant Karla Maria Vides Hernandez’s Counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff Soledad Urbina’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 an action for elder abuse. On September 12, 2024, Plaintiff Soledad Urbina filed a complaint against Defendant Karla Maria Vides Hernandez, erroneously sued as Karla Maria Videz, and Does 1-10, alleging causes of action for (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and (3) elder abuse.

On November 12, 2024, Vides Hernandez filed the present demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for January 13, 2025, along with a case management conference on March 25, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Vides Hernandez demurs to Urbina’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, Vides Hernandez’s counsel has provided a declaration stating counsel met and conferred with Urbina’s counsel on October 31, 2024 by sending an extensive meet and confer letter. (Ahluwalia Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Because a letter is not a code-compliant means 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, Vides Hernandez’s demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

Vides Hernandez’s counsel is also ordered to meet and confer with Urbina’s 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.