DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0053907·placer·Civil·Civil
Hearing in 14 minutesGRANTED

EDMONDS, LANCE v. RED WOLF LODGE AT OLYMIC VALLEY

Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffLANCE EDMONDS
DefendantRED WOLF LODGE AT OLYMIC VALLEY
DefendantSQUAW-TAHOE RESORT TIME INTEREST OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION

Ruling

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR AUGUST 28, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.

10. S-CV-0053907 EDMONDS, LANCE v. RED WOLF LODGE AT OLYMIC VALLEY

NOTE: If oral argument is requested in this case, it shall be heard on AUGUST 28, 2026 AT 1:00 P.M. in DEPARTMENT 1.

Defendant Squaw-Tahoe Resort Time Interest Owners’ Association’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC)

Ruling on Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452.

Ruling on Demurrer

The demurrer is sustained in its entirety without leave to amend.

In the current request, defendant demurs to the first cause of action for battery; third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment; fifth cause of action for private nuisance; and seventh cause of action for breach of contract. Defendant contends that all five challenged causes of action are deficiently pleaded, failing to allege sufficient facts to support any of the claims.

The court has carefully read the FAC, giving the pleading a reasonable interpretation while reading the documents as a whole and considering each part in their context. (Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946) 29 Cal.2d 34, 42, superseded by statute on other grounds in Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 269.) A review of the five causes of action show that each is deficiently pleaded, failing to allege sufficient facts to support any of the challenged claims. (Defendant’s demurrer pp. 4:14-5:23; 5:27-7:21; 7:26-8:21; 8:26-9:9; 9:20-10:10; Code of Civil Procedure section 472d.)

Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to the pending demurrer, which the court construes as plaintiff having abandoned each of the challenged claims. (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.) Thusly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

///

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR AUGUST 28, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.

10. S-CV-0053907 EDMONDS, LANCE v. RED WOLF LODGE AT OLYMIC VALLEY

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint (FAC)

The motion is granted. (Code of Civil Procedure section 435(b)(1), 436(a), (b).)

Defendant seeks to strike all references to punitive damages and requests for attorneys’ fees in the FAC, asserting that the allegations within the FAC are not sufficiently pleaded to support any such requests. The court has carefully considered the allegations within the FAC. Even when providing the pleading a liberal construction and reading the document as a whole, the allegations within the FAC are insufficient to plead punitive damages or an award of attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the current request. In light of the pleading deficiencies and the failure of plaintiff to oppose the current challenge, the court grants the motion without leave to amend.

The language referencing punitive damages in paragraphs 85; 98; 112; and p. 27:21 in the FAC is stricken.

The language referencing attorneys’ fees at p. 27:22 is stricken.

///

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share