Holtkamp vs. Anaheim Police Department

The parties should be prepared to discuss how best to proceed under the circumstances.

12 Holtkamp vs. Motion to Dismiss Anaheim Police (Case Management Conference) Department

1. Motion to Dismiss

The court GRANTS Defendant ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT’s motion to dismiss.

The motion is meritorious. Plaintiff did not amend after the defendant successfully demurred to the entire original complaint. As such, there is no current pleading in this action.

A court may dismiss a case “after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party moves for dismissal.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 581(f)(2); see also Cal. Rules of Ct, rule 3.1320(h) [when the time to amend after a sustained demurrer has expired, “the court may dismiss the action as to the defendant in whose favor the demurrer was sustained.”].)

After a first amended complaint, a plaintiff “no longer [has] an unfettered right to file an amended complaint.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612.) A court has the authority to strike pleadings “not filed in conformity with its prior ruling.” (Id. at 613.) A “plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed by the court subject[s] any subsequently filed pleading to a motion to strike...” (Id.) As such, atrial court may strike an amended complaint “filed in disregard of established procedural processes,” and may strike an amended pleading “because no request for permission to amend was sought.” (Id.)

Here, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the entire Complaint on 3/27/26, giving Plaintiff 20 days leave

to amend. Any first amended complaint was therefore due on 4/16/26. No first amended complaint has been filed.

For this reason, the motion is GRANTED.

The court notes that the original notice of motion was made on behalf of “Defendant CITY OF ANAHEIM”, which was later corrected via a Notice of Errata filed on 7/7/26 to reflect the true name of the defendant, ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT – i.e., the only named defendant in this action. The successful demurrer was made by Anaheim Police Department and the current moving papers was filed by the Anaheim City Attorney’s Office, which represents the successful demurring party.

Moving Defendant to give notice.

2. CMC

In light of the above ruling, the court VACATES the Case Management Conference.

13 Sosa vs. Cornejo Motion to Compel (re Requests for Admission)

The court DENIES in part, and GRANTS in part, Plaintiff BENITO GONZALEZ SOSA’s motion to have Requests for Admission Deemed Admitted.

The request to deem Defendant to have admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission appears to be MOOT. Both sides appear to agree that untimely responses have been served. The court generally does not grant a motion to deem requests admitted where a party serves a response in substantial compliance before the hearing. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

The request to deem requests admitted is therefore DENIED.

23