MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S LATE OVERRULED DEMURRER ANSWER
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVRI2503804 DELGADO VS RAMIREZ MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Vacate Dismissal is granted; Order to Show Cause is ser for 7/20/26, as to why sanctions not to exceed $1,500.00 or dismissal should not be imposed for Failure to file request for entry of default of ALL defendants pursuant to CRC 3.110(g) as to ROBERT C. CHANDLER, FLORENCIA ANASTACIO DELGADO.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PERSON CVRI2506744 CASEM VS FCA US LLC MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE DEPOSITION AS TO FCA US LLC Tentative Ruling: Hearing is vacated; Plaintiff failed to comply with C.C.P. § 2025.450(b)(2).
Prior to filing a motion to compel a deposition, the parties are required to meet and confer, or in the case of a failure to appear, the moving party should inquire about the non-appearance. (C.C.P. § 2025.450(b)(2).) A meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040 must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (C.C.P. § 2025.420.)
There is no evidence that Plaintiff complied with the meet and confer requirements. Specifically, the deposition was scheduled for May 15, 2026. The evidence shows that on May 14, 2026, Defendant emailed Plaintiff to state that its witness was no longer available for deposition. (Acosta Decl., ¶ 11 and Exh. 8.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff contacted Defendant prior to filing this motion on May 19, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to satisfy the meet and confer requirements.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MINTZ VS JON ZORN MOTION TO STRIKE CVRI2507054 DBA HUMMINGBIRD MHP DEFENDANT'S LATE OVERRULED INC. DEMURRER ANSWER Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied.
A party can bring a motion to strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matters inserted in a pleading. (CCP §436(a).) A motion to strike can also be used to strike any part of a pleading that is not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of the state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP §436(b).)
Plaintiff does not bring her motion to strike under CCP § 436
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Notwithstanding, if Plaintiff had brought this motion under CCP § 436, this motion is still denied. She is correct that Defendant filed a late answer. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g), “[f]ollowing a ruling on a demurrer, unless otherwise ordered, leave to answer or amend within 10 days is granted, except for actions in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer in which case 5 calendar days is deemed granted.” This did not occur. Nonetheless, Plaintiff had recourse in regards to Defendant’s late answer, she could have sought entry of default before the answer was filed. Plaintiff points to no authority that supports granting this motion without leave is appropriate under these circumstances.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DOUTHETT VS FCA US DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED CVRI2507430 LLC COMPLAINT CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVRI2507430 DOUTHETT VS FCA US MOTION TO STRIKE ON 1ST LLC AMENDED COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s Demurrer as to the 5th Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend within 20 days; as to the remainder, it is overruled.
Motion to Strike is denied.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant FCA US requests judicial notice of a printout from the California Department of Consumer Affairs website to show that it elected to opt in to new lemon law procedures (CCP §§871.20-871.30). The court declines to consider this request because it is not dipositive on the present motion.
SPECIAL DEMURRER
Demurrers for uncertainty will only be sustained where the defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Demurrers for uncertainty are to be overruled when addressed to inconsequential matters, the facts are within the knowledge of the defendant or ascertainable in discovery, or not