Lucero Milla and Adali Guadarrama v. Ryan Mori
Lucero Milla and Adali Guadarrama v. Ryan Mori
Case Number
23CV03784
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 06/03/2024 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Demurrer of Plaintiffs to Answer to First Amended Complaint
Tentative Ruling
Lucero Milla and Adali Guadarrama v. Ryan Mori
Case No. 23CV03784
Hearing Date: June 3, 2024
HEARING: Demurrer of Plaintiffs to Answer to First Amended Complaint
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiffs Lucero Milla and Adali Guadarrama: Jacob O. Partiyeli
For Defendant Ryan Mori, individually and as trustee of the Ryan Mori Trust: Melissa Fassett, Jeff F. Tchakarov, Price, Postel & Parma LLP
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court, on its own motion, strikes the demurrer of plaintiffs to the answer to the first amended complaint for failing to comply with the pre-filing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. The hearing on the demurrer is ordered off calendar.
Background:
On August 30, 2023, plaintiffs Lucero Milla and Adali Guadarrama (collectively, plaintiffs) filed their original complaint against defendant Ryan Mori, individually and as trustee of the Ryan Mori Trust, (in all capacities, Mori), asserting 14 causes of action. This action is related to case Ruby Milla, et al., v. Ryan Mori etc., Santa Barbara Superior Court case number 23CV03733, for which a demurrer is also set to be heard on this calendar.
On January 8, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer of Mori to the ninth and fourteenth causes of action and otherwise overruled the demurrer to the original complaint.
On February 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC asserts 12 causes of action (omitting the two for which the prior demurrer had been sustained but maintaining the original numbering of causes of action): (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence per se; (9) (omitted); (10) violation of Civil Code section 1946.2; (11) intentional misrepresentation: (12) intentional influence to vacate; (13) retaliatory eviction; and (14) (omitted).
On March 26, 2024, Mori filed his answer to the FAC (Answer). The Answer admits and denies allegations of the FAC and asserts 25 affirmative defenses.
On April 4, 2024, plaintiffs filed this demurrer to the fourth (fault of others), fifth (laches), seventh (failure of condition precedent), ninth (waiver; estoppel), and twenty-fourth (offset) affirmative defenses of the Answer.
Mori opposes the demurrer.
Analysis:
“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 Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)
“The demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the following:
“(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer.
“(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)
The meet and confer declaration filed by counsel for plaintiffs, attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, stating that on March 29, 2024, he sent counsel for Mori, attorney Melissa Fassett, an email which began: “I am going to be filing a demurrer to the answers for both of the cases we have together. Please see below, and I hope you would take this meet and confer opportunity to delete such defenses so we can proceed with this case. Thank you! [¶] Let me know by Monday, April 1, 2024, if you will amend the answer to delete such defenses, otherwise, I will proceed with the filing of the demurrers, thank you!” (Partiyeli decl., ¶ 3.) The email then continued by repeating what is now included on page 3 of the demurrer, stating each affected affirmative defense and the basis for the demurrer. The declaration continues by stating that attorney Fassett “responded in part by saying: ‘I am confused by your email. It does not identify any manner in which the Answers to the First Amended Complaint are in any way deficient.’ ” (Partiyeli decl., ¶ 4.) The declaration then concludes by stating, “Given that we were not able to resolve our differences, Court intervention is now required. Thank you for your consideration.” (Partiyeli decl., ¶ 5.)
“A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) However, section 430.41 requires that the parties meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” and that the concurrently-filed declaration state either that such a meet and confer took place or that the responding counsel failed to respond or otherwise meet and confer in good faith.
The declaration filed with this demurrer does not state the information required by subdivision (a)(3). The initiating email does not offer to meet and confer, but only states that a demurrer will be filed unless the named defenses are deleted. The response as stated in Partiyeli’s declaration is not a failure to respond in good faith, but merely a statement of confusion as to the nature of the issue presented.
Because the declaration does not comply with subdivision (a)(3), the demurrer has not been filed in conformance with law. The hearing on the demurrer is therefore ordered off calendar. The court expresses no opinion as to the merits of the demurrer.