Andrew Hafler v. Newella Hafler

Andrew Hafler v. Newella Hafler, 26CVP-0008

Hearing: Demurrer

Date: July 7, 2026

Andrew Hafler (Plaintiff) filed this action against Newella Barrie Hafler (Defendant) on January 9, 2026. Defendant filed a demurrer on January 28, 2026.

On January 30, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the demurrer. On March 19, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). On May 21, Plaintiff filed a second opposition to the demurrer. On April 9, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

On May 18, at a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to allow Plaintiff to file the SAC. The Court ordered that Plaintiff was granted leave to file the SAC within 10 days and permitted Defendant to file a supplement to the demurrer by June 8, 2026.

On June 8, 2026, Defendant filed a supplement to the demurrer addressing the amended complaints, and a reply to the original demurrer.

Defendant’s demurrer is now on calendar.

Having reviewed the multiple pleadings and briefs as well as Defendant’s supplement, the Court overrules the demurrer on procedural grounds only.

First, Defendant’s demurrer and supplement fail to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(a). Defendant’s supplement does not address how the arguments from the original demurrer apply to the SAC. Rather, it makes entirely new arguments. The Court is therefore unclear exactly as to what Defendant demurs, and on what grounds.

Second, to the extent that the demurrer addresses the original complaint and/or the FAC, it is moot.

Third, to the extent that the supplement makes new arguments in response to the SAC, in addition to the lack of clarity addressed above, Plaintiff has not received sufficient notice of the new grounds nor a sufficient opportunity to respond.

Defendant has until end of day (11:59 p.m.) on August 6, 2026, to file and serve a response to the SAC. No default may be entered as to Defendant unless or until Defendant fails to respond by the August 6, 2026, deadline.

The Court makes no substantive findings on the merits of Defendant’s arguments or Plaintiff’s claims.

1