Motion to Dismiss
25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss CRS# 183152578195 in Department 518
Tentative Ruling - 07/21/2026 Mark Fickes
Background
OnSeptember 5, 2025, Plaintiff Jose A Rodriguez filed a complaint against Defendant Hector Daniel Clark regarding a contract for bodywork and paint done to Plaintiffs vehicle.
On July 13, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss because Plaintiff was not a licensed automotive repair dealer when the work was performed. Plaintiff opposes.
On May 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Thereafter, Plaintiff hired legal counsel.
On June 15, 2026, Plaintiffs new legal counsel filed a supplemental opposition explaining that the complaint likely needs to be amended due to Plaintiffs initial misunderstanding of the law, and that leave to amend has been requested separately. The Opposition also asserts that Defendant failed to meet and confer. (Opp., p. 5.)
The Court finds Defendants motion to dismiss, here, is the procedural equivalent of a demurrer as it is based on the insufficiency of facts to state a cause of action.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure§430.41 (a), prior to filing a demurrer, 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. This section further provides that the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. (CCP§ 430.41(a)(1) (emphasis added).)
The parties shall meet and confer at least5days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least5daysbeforethe date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.
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?”
The 30- day extension shall commence from the date the responsive pleading was previously due, and the demurring party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause. (CCP§ 430.41(a)(2).) CCP§430.41(a)(4) makes clearthatfailing to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule a demurrer; however,courts are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process and 25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss CRS# 183152578195 in Department 518 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
Defendant refers to other communication in his reply to support that the parties communicated prior to the lawsuit (Reply, p. 2) but that does not substitute for the required meet and confer which must occur in person or by phone regarding this motion. Further, no declaration regarding any meet and confer has been filed with the court.
The legislature enacted this meet and confer requirement to encourage parties to resolve pleading objections without court intervention, reducing unnecessary motion practice. Further, if the parties were unable to meet and confer, a thirty-day extension to meet and confer is automatically granted per CCP§ 430.41(a)(2).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Defendant's demurrer styled as a motion to dismiss is CONTINUED to September 8, 2026,at 2:30 pm in Dept. 518.
Defendant is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs counselregardingthis motion and to file a declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at leastnine(9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.
Supplemental briefing isallowed,ifnecessary, with the supplemental opposition duenine(9)court days before the hearing and thesupplementalreply duefive(5)court days before the hearing.
---
The Hearing on Motion to Dismiss CRS# 183152578195 scheduled for 07/23/2026 is continued to 09/08/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at Hayward Hall of Justice.
PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.
To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:
First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss CRS# 183152578195 in Department 518
Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."
Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.
For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.
Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room
Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984
Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984
One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)
---
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)