Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV18968, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18968    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 50

THERE WILL BE NO HEARING. SEE ORDER BELOW

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff Jordan Green (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Andrew David Head and Cesar A. Montoya (jointly, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts fourteen causes of action.

Defendants now demur to the sixth, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth causes of action of the Complaint. Defendants also move to strike portions of the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes both.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants’ counsel’s declarations filed in support of the demurrer and motion to strike indicate that on July 25, 2022, Defendants’ counsel “sent meet and confer correspondence in the form of a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, John Yenokian, in order to discuss the allegations contained in the complaint. Attached as Exhibit ‘1’ is a true and correct copy of the meet and confer correspondence sent to plaintiff’s counsel.” (Wallien Decls., ¶ 3.)[1] Defendants’ counsel indicates that “Mr. Yenokian responded to the correspondence that same day via email indicating that Plaintiff will not be amending the Complaint as Plaintiff believes all causes of action and prayers for relief have been sufficiently pled. Thus, it became apparent the parties would not be able to resolve the issues presented by the present Demurrer [and Motion to Strike] informally.” (Wallien Decls., ¶ 4.) 

The Court notes that the Defendants’ counsel’s declarations do not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred by telephone or in person, or that Defendants’ counsel attempted to do so. 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.)

In light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike is continued to September 27, 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.¿ Parties also are reminded that the must deliver courtesy copies of any documents with a memorandum of points and authorities to Department 50. Parties are ordered to do so by September 20, 2022.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

DATED:  August 26, 2022                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court