DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV136586·alameda·Civil·Legal Malpractice
Hearing about 2 months agoDefendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

JONES vs COOK, et al.

Demurrer and Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
520
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJones
DefendantJames Cook

Attorneys

Borris, Nisenbaum, Lurry and Lacy LLP(Borris, Nisenbaum, Lurry and Lacy LLP)for Defendant

Ruling

25CV136586: JONES vs COOK, et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendants' Demurrer and Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint; filed by Borris, Nisenbaum, Lurry and Lacy LLP James Cook (Defendant) + CRS# 637785246099 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 07/02/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

Defendant's Demurrer is OVERRULED.

The amended pleading states three causes of action - Legal Malpractice, Breach of Contract, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Although the amended pleading states very concise facts to support the elements of each cause of action, the Court finds that there is sufficient factual support to move forward with the litigation.

Defendant challenges the amended pleading by arguing that, for example, the circumstances underlying Plaintiff's criminal proceeding(s) did not (and do not) support a viable civil rights claim - the exclusion from which forms the basis of Plaintiff's claims. These arguments (and this type of factually dependent argument), however, are best for a motion that is not confined to the allegations.

The Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED IN PART.

The Court can take judicial notice of the existence of the attached court records (the endorsed filed complaints) - however, the truth of their contents is not judicially noticeable. The Court can take judicial notice of the existence of a police/incident report - but the truth of its contents is not judicially noticeable and the contents are hearsay.

Defendants shall serve and file an Answer by no later than August 3, 2026.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on July 2, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on July 1, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided 25CV136586: JONES vs COOK, et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendants' Demurrer and Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint; filed by Borris, Nisenbaum, Lurry and Lacy LLP James Cook (Defendant) + CRS# 637785246099 in Department 520 to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share