Maria Eugenia Carrillo De Figueroa vs Sergio Xavier Barragan et al

Case Number

24CV06125

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/09/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer to FAC; Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling

Maria Eugenia Carrillo De Figueroa v. Sergio Xavier Barragan and Roselena Carrillo Aceves 

Case No. 24CV06125

           

Hearing Date: June 9, 2025                                                    

HEARING:              (1)       Demurrer of Defendant Aceves to First Amended Complaint

                             (2)       Demurrer of Defendant Barragan to First Amended Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Maria Eugenia Carrillo De Figueroa: Gregory J. Ramirez

                                    For Defendant Sergio Xavier Barragan: Self-represented

                                    For Defendant Roselena Carrillo Aceves: Kate Lee, Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

On the court’s own motion, the court strikes the demurrers of defendants Sergio Xavier Barragan and Roselena Carrillo Aceves for failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. The hearings on the demurrers are ordered off calendar. Defendants shall file and serve their responsive pleadings on or before July 8, 2025.

Background:

In her amended complaint (FAC), plaintiff Maria Eugenia Carrillo De Figueroa alleges that plaintiff lent $20,000 to defendants Sergio Xavier Barragan and Roselena Carrillo Aceves. (FAC, ¶ BC-1.) Defendants agreed to pay plaintiff when they sell the property they own in Mexico. (Ibid.) The defendants have continually represented to plaintiff over the last 14 years that they would repay her as soon as their property sold in Mexico. (Ibid.) They made this representation to plaintiff as recently as six months ago. (Ibid.)

On October 31, 2024, plaintiff filed her original complaint in this action.

On January 31, 2025, plaintiff filed her FAC. The FAC asserts three causes of action: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) common counts; and (3) intentional tort.

On February 28, 2025, defendant Barragan filed his demurrer to the FAC. This demurrer was originally set for hearing on May 5, but was continued to this hearing date.

On March 3, 2025, defendant Aceves filed her demurrer to the FAC.

On May 1, 2025, plaintiff filed opposition to the Barragan demurrer.

On June 2, 2025, plaintiff filed opposition to the Aceves demurrer.

On June 3, 2025, Aceves filed a reply, including an objection to the opposition to that demurrer as untimely.

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. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)

“As part of the meet and confer process, the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. The party who filed the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).)

“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).)

No meet and confer declarations were filed, with the demurrer or otherwise, by either demurring party.

On its own motion, the court orders the demurrers stricken as not complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (See Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 499–500 [courts have inherent power to strike documents that do not comply with statutory requirements].)

The court notes that the demurring parties have both argued the application of the statute of limitations to, among other things, the cause of action for breach of contract. “The statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim begins to run at the time of breach (that is, when one party fails to perform as contractually required).” (Piedmont Capital Management, LLC v. McElfish (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 961, 964.) In any further matter involving the pleadings, the parties should address the extent to which the allegations fix the time for payment (and hence fix the time when nonpayment becomes a breach).