Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV00577, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00577    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Jason Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Complaint for Negligence” in this action on January 9, 2024 against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”).

Defendant now demurs to the Complaint. Defendant also moves to strike portions of the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes both.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declaration in support of the demurrer indicates, inter alia, that “[p]rior to the filing of this Demurrer, Metro’s counsel sent a detailed correspondence regarding this instant Demurrer. As of the date of the filing of Metro’s demurrer, no agreement has been reached. Due to the responsive pleading deadline, Metro was required to proceed with the instant Demurrer pending a further meet and confer. If a stipulation or agreement is entered, the instant Demurrer will immediately be taken off calendar.” (Liu Decl., ¶ 2.) In addition, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration in support of the motion to strike provides, inter alia, that “[p]rior to the filing of this Motion, Metro’s counsel made a good faith attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel. As of the date of the filing of Metro’s Motion, no agreement has been reached. Due to the responsive pleading deadline, Metro was required to proceed with the instant Motion pending a further meet and confer. If a stipulation or agreement is entered, the instant Motion will immediately be taken off calendar.” (Liu Decl., ¶ 2.)

The Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declarations do not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred in person, by telephone, or by video conference, or that Defendant’s 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, by telephone, or by video conference 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 pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference 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 is continued to _______________, 2024 at 2 p.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.¿

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  June 7, 2024                                   ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court