Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV00265, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00265    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiff Esther Cortez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Phoenix Law Firm PC (“Phoenix”), Alan Gindler, and Joanne Park.

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Phoenix, Alan Frank Gindler, Joanna Park, and Justice California Law Group (collectively, “Defendants”). The FAC asserts fourteen causes of action.

Defendants now demur to certain causes of action of the FAC. Defendants also move to strike portions of the FAC. Plaintiff opposes both.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants’ counsel’s declaration filed in support of the demurrer and motion to strike indicates that on May 26, 2022, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s attorney, David Craig Bernstein, by email, advising him of the grounds on which Defendants planned to file their motion to strike and demurrer to the FAC. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants’ counsel indicates that “[a]s of June 20, 2022, Mr. Bernstein’s position via email to me was ‘Do you wish to schedule a telephone M&C re the demurrer and MTS? Or, we can deem my email sufficient, you can file the challenge to the pleadings and I will oppose.’ I agreed to deem the correspondence sufficient.” (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 9.)

The Court notes that Defendants’ counsel’s declaration does not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred by telephone or in person. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, 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.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, “[b]efore filing a motion to strike…the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a), emphasis added.) Such meeting and conferring must be done in good faith with an effort to try to resolve the issues subject to the demurrer and motion to strike.

In light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike is continued to _______________, 2022 at 2 p.m. in Dept. 50. 

Defendants are¿ordered to meet¿and confer¿with Plaintiff¿within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If the parties are unable to resolve the pleading issues¿or if the parties are otherwise unable to meet and confer in good faith, Defendants are to¿thereafter¿file and serve¿a declaration setting forth the efforts to meet and confer in compliance with¿Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(3) and Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a)(3) within 15 days of this order.¿

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  October 24, 2022                           ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court