Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 25STCV01174, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01174    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiffs Talieh Amirian and Tourage Soleimani (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on January 16, 2025, against Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Jaguar Land Rover of Santa Monica (collectively, “Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code § 1793.2, (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civ. Code § 1793.2, (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civ. Code § 1793.2, (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (5) negligent repair, and (6) fraudulent inducement—concealment.

Defendants now demur to the fifth and sixth causes of action in the Complaint. Defendants also move to strike Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages from the Complaint. Plaintiffs oppose both.

            Discussion

As an initial matter, Defendants’ counsel’s declaration in support of the demurrer indicates, inter alia, that “[o]n February 16, 2025, I sent an email to counsel for Plaintiffs to meet and confer regarding the demurrer and motion to strike that Defendants intended to file. The email laid out in detail the various pleading issues pertinent to the concurrently-filed demurrer, as well as Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.” (Vandenburg Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) As to the demurrer and motion to strike, counsel indicates that “[d]espite reasonable effort by [counsel’s] office, we were unable to informally resolve the pleading issues, thus necessitating the instant motion.” (Vandenburg Decls., ¶ 3.)

The Court notes that Defendants’ counsel’s declarations do not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred by telephone, by video conference, or in person, or that Defendants’ counsel attempted to do so. Moreover, there is no indication as to whether Plaintiffs’ counsel responded to the meet and confer correspondence.

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 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 and 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 _______________, 2025 at 2 p.m. in Dept. 50.¿ 

Defendants are ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs 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:  April 21, 2025                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court