| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Demurrer with Motion to Strike
For these reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona). Counsel for defendant General Motors LLC is ORDERED to MEET AND CONFER with plaintiff Naomi Garcia’s counsel regarding the present motion for judgment on the pleadings and to FILE a SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the motion.
Demurrer with Motion to Strike to Plaintiff City of Diamond Bar’s Complaint Respondent: Plaintiff City of Diamond Bar
Defendant Howard Tse-Ho Hsu’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike to Plaintiff City of Diamond Bar’s Complaint is CONTINUED. BACKGROUND This is a nuisance abatement action. Defendants Howard Tse-Ho Hsu and Cecil Tse Hsu (collectively, the Hsus) allegedly own residential real property within the jurisdiction of plaintiff City of Diamond Bar (the City). Defendants Homebridge Financial Services, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; and Interfaith Federal Credit Union each allegedly have a recorded interest in the real property.
On September 27, 2023, the City allegedly inspected the real property from the public right-of-way and observed a deteriorated wall, outdoor storage of items and debris, a vehicle encroaching into the public right-of-way, a vehicle parked on an unpaved surface, poor landscaping, and a commercial vehicle; all of which allegedly constitute violations of the City’s Municipal Code. That same day, the City issued a Courtesy Notice to Correct Violation. On October 4, 2023, the City allegedly re-inspected the real property and observed that the Hsus failed the correct the violations.
On October 5, 2023, the City allegedly informed the Hsus that they needed a zoning clearance to properly address the violations. On March 18, 2024, the City allegedly re-inspected the real property and observed that the Hsus failed to complete the abatement work authorized by the City despite the Hsus obtaining a zoning clearance. On April 9, 2024, the City allegedly issued a Civil Citation citing the storage of debris and trash storage receptacles in public view, maintenance of a deteriorated wall, and failure to maintain landscaping in proper condition; directing the Hsus to correct the violations; and ordering the Hsus to pay a fine.
On May 9, 2024; June 26, 2024; and September 30, 2024, the City allegedly issued additional Civil Citations citing the same violations, directing the Hsus to correct the violations, and ordering the Hsus to pay a fine. Between June 2024 and March 2026, the City
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?”
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.41 and 435.5, prior to filing a demurrer or motion to strike, “the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a); 435.5, subd. (a).) They further provide that the demurring or moving party “shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to [demurrer or being stricken] and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(1); 435.5, subd. (a)(1).) While Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.41 and 435.5 make clear failing to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule a demurrer, courts “are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process’ and if the court determines “no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Dumas v.
Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355 & fn. 3.)
Discussion
Howard Tse-Ho Hsu’s counsel failed to provide a declaration that attests that they complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See generally Dem. w/ MTS.) Therefore,
the court CONTINUES the demurrer with motion to strike and ORDERS Howard Tse-Ho Hsu’s counsel to MEET AND CONFER with the City’s counsel by telephone, video conference, or in person and FILE a SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the demurrer with is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona).
Counsel for defendant Howard Tse-Ho Hsu is ORDERED to MEET AND CONFER with plaintiff City of Diamond Bar’s counsel regarding the present demurrer with motion to strike and to FILE a SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike. Home -->)" -->