Button, Patrick v. Durham Irrigation District

Judge Benson – Law & Motion – Wednesday, April 22, 2026 @ 9:00 AM

1. 22CV00013 Wood, Jennifer v. Hood, Ria

EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Awarding Attorney Fees

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Awarding Attorney Fees is GRANTED. This is based on a reasonable lodestar calculation. Also, in considering the apportionment of attorney fees, a party may be ordered to bear attorney fees related to advancing positions of “limited merit.” (See Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957, 968) Here the Court finds some of the positions advanced by Defendant through the course of litigation had minimal merit. Accordingly, Defendant is responsible for Plaintiff’s attorney fees in the amount of $21,392.73. Defendant’s late-filed opposition will not be considered. Plaintiff shall prepare the form of order within 2 weeks.

2. 25AP00007 Button, Patrick v. Durham Irrigation District

EVENT: Defendant Durham Irrigation District’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Writ of Mandate

The demurrer is overruled. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied. Regarding correspondence between the parties, such evidence is not (and has never been) proper subjects for judicial notice. As it pertains to the procedure for objecting to a proposed fee, judicial notice might be appropriate under Evidence Code section 452. However, even if that document is subject to judicial notice, Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff did not use the prescribed form is extrinsic matter. A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v.

Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905) The hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of documents whose truthfulness or proper interpretation are disputable. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp., (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 97, 113) “Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.” (Herrera v.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375) 1

This demurrer essentially attempts to turn this into an evidentiary hearing through the guise of judicial notice. The question is whether the operative pleading sufficiently alleges exhaustion of remedies. The court, trial and appellate, accepts all facts alleged in the complaint as true, and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. (Kruss v. Booth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 699, 713) Making all inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the inference is that paragraph 18 alleges Plaintiff adequately exhausted his remedies.

We simply cannot consider on demurrer any extrinsic arguments from Defendant that he did not exhaust his remedies. Weil & Brown California Practice Guide (The Rutter Group) (2022) Civil Procedure Before Trial, Demurrer, [7:44] No matter how unlikely: The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on demurrer. [Del E.

Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 CA3d 593, 603] Defendant shall file an answer within 20 days’ notice of this order. The Court will prepare the order.

3. 25CV01719 JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Romero, Joseph

EVENT: Opposition to Claim of Exemption

The Court will conduct a hearing.

4. 25CV03377 Li, Yi v. Crew Enterprises, LLC et al.

EVENT: Motion to set Aside Default (Continued from 3/25/26)

Motion to set Aside Default is GRANTED. Defendant shall separately file and serve the proposed demurrer within 10 days of this order. Defendant shall prepare the form of order.

2|Page