Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 23STCV24062, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff Marita Valdez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Gregory Nicolaysen, a Professional Law Corporation and Gregory Nicolaysen (jointly, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA, and (2) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA.

Defendants now demur to both causes of action of the Complaint and move to strike portions of the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes both.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff asserts that the demurrer and motion to strike were untimely served. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), “[u]nless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California…” (Emphasis added.)

Here, the demurrer and motion to strike were originally noticed for hearing on November 17, 2023. The Court notes that Defendants did not appear to file any proof of service with the demurrer or motion to strike. However, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “Defendants mail served their demurrer and motion to strike late on October 23, 2023.” (Zamora Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. A.)

Sixteen court days prior to November 17, 2023 (the original hearing date) is October 25, 2023. Five calendar days prior to October 25, 2023 is October 20, 2023. However, Defendants filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike on October 23, 2023. In addition, as discussed, Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that “Defendants mail served their demurrer and motion to strike late on October 23, 2023.” (Zamora Decls., ¶ 2, Exs. A.) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that “our offices did not receive Defendants demurrer and motion to strike until October 26, 2023.” (Zamora Decls., ¶¶ 2.)[1]

In their consolidated reply, Defendants do not appear to dispute that the demurrer and motion to strike were untimely filed and served. Defendants do not show that Plaintiff was provided adequate notice of the demurrer and motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b). The Court is thus inclined to continue the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike so that Plaintiff has adequate time to respond.

In light of the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike to _______________, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 50.

Plaintiff may file and serve new opposition papers that will supersede any previously filed opposition papers. Any opposition and reply papers must be filed and served per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) with courtesy copies delivered to Dept. 50 on the same date as the filing. Defendant did not previously provide a courtesy copy of the demurrer and motion to strike. Defendant must deliver a courtesy copy to Dept. 50 by January 19, 2024.

[1]Plaintiff also notes that the demurrer and motion to strike incorrectly state that the demurrer and motion to strike will be heard in Department 62. On October 10, 2023, before the instant demurer and motion to strike were filed, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia, that “[g]ood cause appearing and on order of the Court, the above matter is reassigned at the direction of the Supervising Judge to Judge Teresa A. Beaudet in Department 50 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all further proceedings.”

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50