DOG HOUSE PASEO DEL REY, LLC VS CANYON ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEFENDANTS CANYON ESTATES HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, DOG HOUSE PASEO DESERT RESORT MANAGEMENT, DEL REY, LLC VS INC. DBA ASSOCIA DESERT CVPS2506122 CANYON ESTATES RESORT MANAGEMENT, NANCY HOMEOWNERS BURKE, MICHAEL WALLACE AND ASSOCIATION RANDALL WELSH’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: To withstand a demurrer the complaint must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (C.C.P. § 425.10.)

“[T]he complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action, each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) Generally a plaintiff need on’ly plead facts necessary “to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his claims.” (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 549-550.)

On demurrer the court must assume the truth of all facts properly pled, facts that may be implied or reasonably inferred from the facts expressly alleged, and evidentiary facts that are in exhibits attached to the complaint. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6.) The court’s task is to treat well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

“The hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of affidavits, declarations, depositions, and other such material which was filed on behalf of the adverse party and which purports to contradict the allegations and contentions of the plaintiff.” (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 605; Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374- 375.)

In evaluating a demurrer, the court gives the pleading a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and all of its parts in their context. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.) In ruling on a demurrer, the court may take into account only the challenged pleading and matters subject to judicial notice under E.C. §§451, 452. (C.C.P. §§430.30(a0, 430.70; Gould v. Maryland Sound Indus., Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1144.)

The sole issue raised by a demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purposes of the demurrer. (Requa v. Regents of University of California (2012) 213 Cal.App.4th 213, 223 (citing Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Material Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604).) However, a demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Daar v. Yellow Cab Company (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

If the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Newly added 12th – 14th causes of action:

Granting leave to amend in an order sustaining a demurrer “must be construed as permission to the pleader to amend the cause of action which he pleaded in the pleading to which the demurrer has been sustained.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Wks. V. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785.) Normally, such leave does not allow the pleader leave to add a new cause of action unless “the new cause of action directly responds to the court’s reason for sustaining the earlier demurrer.” (Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.) The court’s previous leave to amend did not open the opportunity to allege the new causes of action; therefore, they were filed without leave of court.

Uncertainty:

Defendants again demur to the 1st – 7th, and 10th causes of action. A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

In ruling on the demurrer to the SAC, as to the 1st – 7th and 10th causes of action, the court found the pleading uncertain as to the five moving Defendants as the entire SAC lumped all five defendants together and identified as HOA Defendants, yet failed to set forth separate factual basis for liability against each. Accordingly, the court sustained the entire SAC as to moving Defendants, with leave to amend. The court’s minute order clearly articulates the deficiency to be addressed in any amendment, yet once again, Plaintiffs lump each of the Defendants together and never set forth allegations as to what each individual is alleged to have done that could support individual liability as to each.

Plaintiffs’ failure to address the court’s explicit prior ruling would support the court sustaining these 8 causes of action without leave to amend. However, the court shall allow one final opportunity to plead separate facts regarding each Defendant that they allege support liability against each individual defendant. The court advises Plaintiffs that no further opportunities to correct this deficiency will be allowed and failure to address the deficiencies will result in the court sustaining without leave to amend.

Demurrer as to the 12th, 13th and 14th Causes of Action SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Demurrer as to the 1st-7th and 10th Causes of Action SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this order.

Case Management Conference continued to November 9, 2026.

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEFENDANTS CANYON ESTATES HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, DOG HOUSE PASEO DESERT RESORT MANAGEMENT, DEL REY, LLC VS INC. DBA ASSOCIA DESERT CVPS2506122 CANYON ESTATES RESORT MANAGEMENT, NANCY HOMEOWNERS BURKE, MICHAEL WALLACE AND ASSOCIATION RANDALL WELSH’S MOTION TO STRIKE AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling:

The motion to strike fails to comply with CRC rule 3.1322(a), putting the onus on the court to identify and number requests for ruling.

Accordingly the motion to strike is denied in its entirety.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike DENIED.

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY OF DOG DOG HOUSE PASEO HOUSE PASEO DEL REY, LLC BY DEL REY, LLC VS DOG HOUSE PASEO DEL REY, CVPS2506122 CANYON ESTATES LLC, MICHAEL WILLIAMS, AS HOMEOWNERS TRUSTEE TO THE BRAD ROBERT ASSOCIATION PRESCOTT LIVING TRUST, MICHAEL WILLIAMS, BRIAN HARP KRAFT, TRUSTEE TO THE BRIAN HARP KRAFT LIVING TRUST Tentative Ruling: C.C.P. §473 authorizes the court to grant leave to amend any pleading “in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper.”

A motion for relief under CCP § 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that it was abused. (Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 897-898; Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486.)3.1324(b).

California courts have developed “a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” (Dunzweiler v. Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 569, 576.) Thus, if a motion is timely and the amended pleading will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error not to allow leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048;

Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [“If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion”].)

While courts will occasionally deny leave to amend when the motion is brought on the eve of trial (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487-88; Nelson v. Specialty Records, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 126, 139-40), “it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports Co., 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; see also Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) Prejudice can occur when an amendment “open[s] up an entirely new field of inquiry without any satisfactory explanation as to why this major change in point of attack had not been made long before trial.” (Magpali, 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487) or when allowing amendment would result in a delay of trial, loss of critical evidence, or added preparation expenses. (Solit v.

Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) But the fact that the amendment involves a change in legal theory, or will cause a more favorable result for the plaintiff, is not prejudice. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)

While leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274), “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty, 173 Cal.App.3d 173, 281.) Leave to amend should be denied for failure to state a cause of action only when the insufficiency of the proposed amendment is established by controlling precedent and the insufficiency could not be cured by further appropriate amendment. (California Casualty, 173 Cal.App.3d 173, 281.)

Plaintiffs submitted an original complaint on August 14, 2025, followed by the First Amended Complaint on November 21, 2025. After the court granted a motion to strike several portions of the FAC related to punitive damages, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 2, 2026. A sustained demurrer as referenced in the tentative ruling for the Demurrer to the 3rd Amended Complaint, resulted in Plaintiffs filing a Third Amended Complaint on June 11, 2026. Plaintiffs now seek leave to amend two months after having already filed their Third Amended Complaint with the added causes of action.

In the declaration of Plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric M. Khodadian, he states that the additional causes of action were not made “because Plaintiffs did not become aware that these additional causes of action may be asserted until Plaintiffs were in the process of drafting the TAC...” (Dec. ¶5). This statement is not in compliance with CRC 3.1324(b) which requires the moving party to include in the declaration when the facts were discovered giving rise to the amendment AND why it was not made earlier. There is no basis as to what facts were discovered and how they were not discovered earlier, especially in light of the multiple revisions of the complaint as outlined above.

However, as pointed out in Plaintiff’s reply the new causes of action for Premises Liability, (12th), Trespass (13th) and Financial Elder Abuse (14th) are based on allegations and facts previously pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint, and the court finds that permitting those causes of action as well as punitive damages to be included is not prejudicial.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is directed to submit an amended complaint reflecting the amended causes of action 1st-7th and 10th, and include the new causes of action listed in the preceding paragraph.

Amended complaint to be filed within 30 days of this order.

Case Management Conference continued to November 9, 2026.

5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST GUILLAUME VS CITY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT OF RONDA CVPS2507057 CATHEDRAL CITY GUILLAUME BY CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling.

Hearing is continued to September 21, 2026 to permit Defendant to submit a Reply to the untimely filed Opposition. Reply to be filed by September 14, 2026. No further briefing permitted.

Case Management Conference continued to September 21, 2026.

6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME PALACIOS VS DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED ANSCHUTZ COMPLAINT OF JAVIER REGINO CVPS2600851 ENTERTAINMENT PALACIOS BY GOLDENVOICE, GROUP, INC., A LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION COMPANY Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling.

The hearing on the demurrer is continued to October 23, 2026. The parties are ordered to meet and confer via in person, teleconference or phone for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. As part of the meet and confer process, Defendant shall identify the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. Plaintiffs shall provide legal support for their position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint may be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.

After meeting and conferring, the parties shall 10 days before the continued hearing date set above do one of the following:

(1) Defendant vacate the hearing on the demurrer, and file an Answer;

(2) The Parties file with the court a joint declaration stating the parties have agreed that Plaintiff will file an amended complaint before the date set forth above; or

(3) The Parties file with the court a joint declaration stating the means by which the parties met and conferred and identifying the specific objections in the demurrer and supporting memorandum of points and authorities that the parties were unable to resolve. (CCP §430.41(a)(3), CCP §435.5(a)(3).)

The court will not accept further briefing.

Case Management Conference continued to October 23, 2026. Parties are directed to not submit updated Case Management Statements for the next hearing date.

7. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CHAPMAN VS MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS CVPS2602881 CHAPMAN COUNSEL FOR DAVID CHAPMAN Tentative Ruling:

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel GRANTED

Counsel to submit proposed order MC-053. Court will sign proposed order once submitted.

Attorneys Vincent Whittaker, Chandra Roam and Emma York are relieved as counsel of record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant David Chapman, effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Records is continued to October 21, 2026..

Case Management Conference is confirmed for October 21, 2026.

A status hearing re representation for Defendant/Cross-Complainant David Chapman is scheduled for October 21, 2026.