Demurrer to plf’s 01/08/26 Complaint
26CV000409: GRAMAJO vs YOFFYLY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 04/07/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's 01/08/26, Complaint in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with
26CV000409: GRAMAJO vs YOFFYLY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 04/07/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to plf's 01/08/26, Complaint in Department 53
a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL THEN BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***
Defendant Yoffyly, A California Corporations (Defendant) demurrer to Plaintiff Ervin Gramajos (Plaintiff) January 8, 2026 Complaint is dropped as moot. Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint on February 25, 2026, as is his right pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472, subdivision (a). [A]n amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.) The amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment.
Because there is but one complaint in a civil action, the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint. (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [citations omitted]) Thus, the filing of an amended complaint renders moot a demurrer to the original complaint. (JKC38H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.) The Court notes that although Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 25, 2026, Defendant thereafter proceeded to file its notice of demurrer (to the January 8, 2026 original complaint) and all supporting papers on March 5, 2026.
To the extent these filings were made because Plaintiff had not yet served his amended complaint by such date, the Court observes that Plaintiff has filed what appears, on its face, to be a proof of service on March 23, 2026. The Court does not rule upon the adequacy of any service and notes only that Plaintiff was required to serve promptly any amended complaint. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)