Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV21631, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21631    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiff Nechama Kravitz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 5, 2022 against Defendant Conrad Property Management Inc. (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) Business and Professions Code § 17200, (3) unlawful retention of security deposit, (4) breach of residential lease agreement, (5) negligence, and (6) conversion. 

Defendant now demurs to each of the causes of action of the Complaint and moves to strike portions of the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes both.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declarations filed in support of the demurrer and motion to strike indicate, inter alia, that “[o]n July 26, 2022, I directed an extensive meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel outlining Defendant’s positions related to this [Demurrer and Motion]. Plaintiff responded that Plaintiff was unequivocally deciding to stand on the current pleadings…Based upon Plaintiff’s unequivocal response, it became clear that any further attempts to meet and confer would be fruitless and only cause my client to incur needless attorneys’ fees and expenses.” (Nussbaum Decls., ¶¶ 3-4.)

The Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declarations do 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 Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike and the Case Management Conference is continued to February 9, 2023 at 10 a.m. in Dept. 50. 

Defendant is 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, Defendant is 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.¿ 

THE COURT ALSO NOTES THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE A COURTESY COPY OF THE OPPOSITION.  A COURTESY COPY OF THE OPPOSITION MUST BE DELIVERED TO DEPT. 50 AT LEAST 5 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  January 9, 2023                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court