Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 25PSCV00250, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25PSCV00250    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant Audrey Estella’s Amended Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Audrey Estella’s Amended Demurrer to Complaint is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

The court orders Defendant to meet and confer with Plaintiff 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.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for misappropriation of property. On January 27, 2025, plaintiff William Vasquez Perez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Kristen Sanchez and Audrey Estrella (collectively, Defendants), alleging causes of action for (1) misappropriation of property, (2) felony theft, and (3) emotional distress.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff was the sole owner of R2, a dog, for the last two and a half years. Plaintiff temporarily placed R2 in Sanchez’ care while he volunteered as a wilderness first responder during the Los Angeles wildfires and community rebuilding efforts. On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to retrieve R2, but Sanchez resisted. Sanchez later informed Plaintiff that R2 was with Estrella, with whom Plaintiff previously shared custody.

On February 27, 2025, Sanchez filed an initial demurrer. On March 5, 2025, Sanchez filed an amended demurrer. A hearing on the present demurrer is set for April 1, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s entire complaint. For the following reasons, the court finds the parties did not adequately meet and confer as required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.

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

Here, Defendant does not state the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone to discuss any of the issues asserted in the demurrer. Due to Defendant’s failure to meet and confer pursuant to code, the court determines a continuance of the hearing on the demurrer is appropriate to permit the parties an opportunity to meet and confer.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Audrey Estella’s amended demurrer is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).

The court orders Defendant to meet and confer with Plaintiff 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.