| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Defendant Stacy Givens’ Demurrer to Complaint
7 | P a g e
valuables to Defendants, that Defendants operated a storage facility, and that they had a duty to protect Plaintiffs’ property.
Uncertainty Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc., (2019) 38 Cal. App. 5th 677, 695) The pleading is not incomprehensible. The demurrer is overruled on this ground.
Conversion For the first time in the reply, Defendants argue the conversion cause of action is negated by allegations of theft by third parties. New issues raised in the reply brief are not appropriate. (See Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764) Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled on this ground.
Defendants shall file an answer within 20 days’ notice of this order. The Court will prepare the order.
11. 26CV00944 Valdezdealeman, Rosa v. Badovinac, Derek V
EVENT: Motion to Consolidate Cases Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1048(A)
Pursuant to CRC 3.350(a)(2)(A), the Court defers to Hon. Tamara Mosbarger’s ruling on the motion to consolidate filed in 23CV02982.
12. 25CV05111 Oline-Hurlow, Maria v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.
EVENT: Defendant Stacy Givens’ Demurrer to Complaint
In light of the dismissal filed, the demurrer is moot.
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?”