| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Demurrer; Motion to Strike
interests, ” (Ramirez vs. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915), or “an unreasonable disruption of the orderly processes of justice,” (People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975, 979). The court may also deny an attorney’s request to withdraw “where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding”. (Mandell v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) However, such discretion is to be exercised reasonably. (Ibid.)
Here, Counsel has failed to comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court, including filing and serving the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (Form MC-052).
In addition, Counsel has not filed and served the mandatory form Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil (Form MC-053.)
Further, the proof of service is unclear as to how Defendant Aronas Corporation was served. Although the proof of service states that Defendant Aronas Corporation was served by electronic mail, it does not include an electronic mail address for Defendant Aronas Corporation.
Nor has Counsel prepared a declaration stating either that (1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or (2) the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to filing the motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d)(1).)
Therefore, the court will deny without prejudice the motion to be relieved as counsel.
The court clerk shall give notice of this ruling.
Demurrer and Motion to Strike 9 30-2024-01449453 Cross-Defendant Tina Nieto’s Demurrer to Cross- Complaint is CONTINUED to July 27, 2026 at 9:00 Four Aces Remodeling, LLC a.m. in Department N15. vs. Always in Motion, LLC Cross-Defendant Tina Nieto’s Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED to July 27, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department N15.
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?”
Cross-Complainant Always in Motion, LLC and Cross-Defendant Tina Nieto are ORDERED to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference regarding all the issues raised in the Cross-Defendant Tina Nieto’s Demurrer to Cross- Complaint and Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint. The meet and confer shall last at least 30 minutes unless the parties are able to resolve all of the issues.
Pending Motions
Cross-Defendant Tina Nieto (Cross-Defendant Nieto) demurs to the First Amended Cross- Complaint (FACC) filed by Cross-Complainant Always in Motion, LLC.
Cross-Defendant Nieto moves to strike allegations related to alter ego and punitive damages, and the prayers for relief for punitive damages and attorney’s fees of the FACC.
Notice of Demurrer and Motion to Strike
In response to the demurrer and motion to strike, Cross-Complainant contends that the notice on the demurrer and motion to strike were defective because the body of the notice stated only “[Date]” and “[Time],” but the actual date and time for the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike were left blank.
However, the caption page of both the demurrer and motion to strike make clear the date and time of the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike.
Cross-Complainant also argues that the notice on the demurrer failed to identify the specific causes of action to which Cross-Defendant Nieto was demurring.
Further, Cross-Complainant asserts that Cross- Complainant failed to meet and confer as required by Civil Procedure Code sections 430.41 and 435.5.
“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference 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 Civil Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)
In addition, a party moving to strike “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civil Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)
As part of that process, “the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to being stricken and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies” and “[t]he party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.” (Code Civil Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(1).)
The court has reviewed the communications between the parties and finds that Cross- Defendant Nieto, as the moving party, failed to make a sufficient effort to meet and confer (or, at the very least, seek an extension of time to file the demurrer and motion to strike in order to allow the parties to meet and confer).
The evidence shows that Cross-Complainant’s Counsel provided Cross-Defendant Nieto’s Counsel with a telephone number, but that Cross- Defendant Nieto’s Counsel then waited for Cross- Complainant’s Counsel to call him. (See Decl. of Brad Lee in Supp. of Cross-Def. Nieto’s Replies in Supp. of Dem. and Mot. to Strike (Lee Reply Decl.), ¶¶ 6-7).
As the moving party, Cross-Defendant Nieto’s passive actions in “waiting” rather than taking steps to affirmatively meet and confer are insufficient. Here, properly meeting and conferring likely would have resolved many of the issues presented by the demurrer and motion to strike, including the lack of clarity as to which causes of action Cross- Defendant Nieto was demurring.
In addition, Cross-Defendant Nieto’s argument that the FACC is uncertain, particularly given that Cross-Defendant Nieto was added as a Roe Cross-
Defendant and all Cross-Defendants are grouped together in the FACC, such that Defendant Nieto’s role in the events and actions of this case are unclear. (See e.g., Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2 [when plaintiff joins multiple causes of action as one, fails to properly identify each cause of action, or fails to state against which party each cause of action is asserted if there are multiple defendants, complaint is uncertain.].)
An agreement between the parties to stipulate to Cross-Complainant filing a second amended cross- complaint that clearly delineates Cross-Defendant Nieto’s role and the basis for liability against Cross-Defendant Nieto may easily resolve some or all of the issues raised in the demurrer and/or motion to strike.
Therefore, the court will continue the demurrer and motion to strike and order that the parties meet and confer regarding the issues raised in the demurrer and motion to strike.
Cross-Defendant Nieto shall give notice of this ruling.
10 Motion to Amend 30-2024-01393270 Kenneth Craig Haase’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer was CONTINUED to May 26, Hodgson vs. Haase 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department N15 pursuant to the court’s orders issued May 7, 2026. (See ROA #251.)
11 Motion for Compliance 30-2025-01488610 Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26 is TAKEN Foley vs. General Motors, LLC OFF CALENDAR pursuant to the Request for Dismissal of the entire action of all parties and all causes of action filed April 20, 2026 (ROA #58).
12 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel 30-2024-01424072 Counsel Anthony Werbin, Esq.’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Sergio Reyna Hernandez vs. Starbucks Hernandez is GRANTED/DENIED. Corporation