CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT AND DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
service, is jurisdictionally defective.” (Support Memo, p. 1; see also, id., p. 5, citing Lazar v. Estate of Lazar (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 554, 555-56.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s attempted personal service on decedent’s surviving spouse, Chris Malan, is invalid and void.
“Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons to the extent it seeks to quash service on ‘Estate of Jack Malan’ as an improperly named defendant. However, Plaintiff opposes the motion to the extent it: 1. Seeks findings or relief beyond quashing the defective service; 2. Attempts to preclude Plaintiff from substituting the proper defendant via Doe amendment; or 3. Improperly raises statute of limitations arguments that are beyond the scope of a motion to quash.” (Opposition, p. 1.)
Defendant filed nothing by way of a reply to Plaintiff’s (non)opposition.
While Defendant’s motion makes arguments concerning the statute of limitations, Defendant’s motion is not noticed on that ground and does not request relief on that ground. (See Notice of Motion, Support Memo, and Proposed Order.) Nor does Defendant’s motion or proposed order seek findings or relief beyond quashing the defective service or attempt to preclude Plaintiff from substituting the proper defendant via Doe amendment.2
Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED.
25 Executive, LLC v. Julie Nguyen 25CV002614
CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT AND DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion and demurrer appear to be MOOT.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.
The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
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?”
2 On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment to Complaint on what appears to be a Los Angeles Superior Court local form. This Court generally requires parties to comply with section 472 for amendments to complaints (as opposed to simply filing Doe Amendments). Here, Plaintiff had already amended the complaint once without leave of court, and, therefore, additional amendments require leave of this Court. However, given that Defendant’s instant motion raised the need for a Doe Amendment and that Defendant did not file a Reply in response to Plaintiff’s Opposition setting forth the plan to file a Doe Amendment, the Court will allow the April 30, 2025 Doe Amendment to remain, notwithstanding any right for Defendant to challenge the amendment.
Cross-Defendants 25 Executive, LLC, Jeremy Sill, and Jesse Van Coutren (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) demur, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), and move to strike, pursuant to sections 435 and 436, subdivision (a), to the Cross- Complaint of Julie Nguyen (“Cross-Complainant”).
“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time . . . after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (§ 472, subd. (a).)
Cross-Complainant filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) prior to the date on which an opposition to the present demurrer and motion was due. There is no proof of service of the FACC appearing in the Court’s file. Presuming, however, that the FACC was timely served, the issues raised by the present demurrer and motion are MOOT.
In The Matter of Sang Cong Truong 26CV000398
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: Notice has been properly published and no written objections have been filed. The petition is GRANTED without need for appearance.
In The Matter of Liliane Cossette Blumberg 26CV000630
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to June 09, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A to allow Petitioner to remedy the following issue: the Petition is not signed and verified.
Petitioner is directed to file an amended petition, which is signed and verified.
In The Matter of Wyatt Steven Lang 26CV000718
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: An Order to Show Cause for Change of Name (OSC) was entered in this matter on April 03, 2026. Petitioner is required to publish the OSC in the manner set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1277. However, there is no proof of publication (POP) in the Court’s file. If one is filed before the hearing, the petition will be GRANTED without need for appearance.
4