Belladiem Bookin v. Eric Torbet, et al

Case Number

25CV02153

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/17/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer of Defendant Eric Torbet to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Belladiem Bookin, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Ann Marie Plane: Timothy C. Hale, Nye Stirling   Hale Miller & Sweet LLP

For Defendant Eric Torbet: Hugo Torbet

For Defendant Edward Bookin: John C. Eck, Griffith & Thornburgh LLP

For Defendant The Estate of Marika Bookin: Cristi Michelon Vasquez

                      

RULING

Both the CMC and the L&M matters will be called at the 10am calendar call; no appearances at the 8:30 CMC Calendar call expected.

The Demurrer: It is taken off-calendar as moot. Counsel for Eric Torbet is ordered to refrain from directing personal attacks and insults at Plaintiff’s counsel.

The CMC:

CMCS filed by Plaintiff: Plaintiff, while a minor, was sexually abused by Defendant Eric Torbet. Defendants Edward Bookin and The Estate of Marika Bookin are the adoptive parents of Plaintiff who were friends with Torbet. Defendant Parents allowed Torbet to continue to hang out with Plaintiff even though Marika Bookin caught Torbet abusing Plaintiff, allowing the abuse to continue for years. 14 day trial estimate; Defendant Eric Torbet's demurrer to complaint is scheduled for December 17, 2025, and Edward Bookin's demurrer to complaint is scheduled for January 28, 2026. Acknowledges trial date.

CMCS from Edward Bookin: Acknowledges trial date. After Bookin's consel and Plaintiffs counsel met and conferred regarding the Complaint, Defendant Bookin filed his Demurrer to the Complaint on Novemner 25, 2025; the matter is set for hearing on January 28, 2026. Defendant Tarbet filed a Demurrer, and that is scheduled to be heard on December 17, 2025, following this CMC, at 10:00 a.m. The Mandatory Settlement Conference is scheduled for September 18, 2026; and Trial Call is set for October 14, 2026. After this Case Management Conference, the parties will proceed accordingly.

CMCS from Eric Torbet: Acknowledges trial date.

The Court: The Court sets a follow up CMC for 5/20/25 at 8:30am.

The trial date and the MSC date are confirmed.

Background

This action commenced on April 9, 2025, by the filing of the original complaint by Plaintiff Belladiem Bookin,(Plaintiff) by and through her Conservator Ann Marie Plane, against Defendants Eric Torbet (Torbet), Edward Bookin (Edward), and The Estate of Marika Bookin (Marika) for: (1) Childhood Sexual Abuse – as to Torbet; (2) Sexual Battery – as to Torbet; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – as to Torbet; (4) Negligence – as to all Defendants; (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – as to all Defendants; (6) Assault – as to Edward; and (7) Battery – as to Edward. [Note: Due to the identical surnames, Edward Bookin and Marika Bookin will be referred to by their given names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.]

The complaint essentially alleges that Torbet groomed and sexually abused Plaintiff and that Edward and Marika, Plaintiff’s adoptive parents, allowed Plaintiff to be alone with Torbet and failed to prevent the sexual abuse. There are also independent allegations against Edward for assault with a large kitchen knife and battery with his fist and hands.

On April 11, 2025, Ann Marie Plane was appointed guardian ad litem for Plaintiff.

On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint to correct incorrect name from “BELLADIEM BOOKIN, by and through her Conservator ANN MARIE PLANE” to “BELLADIEM BOOKIN, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem ANN MARIE PLANE.”

Although Torbet argues that this constitutes an amended complaint, it does not. It is simply an amendment to the complaint to correct a name.

On October 8, 2025, Torbet filed his demurrer to the original complaint.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the demurrer but, On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (FAC).

On December 8, 2025, Torbet filed a reply to his demurrer and argues that Plaintiff has already amended the complaint once (this is discussed above), that the Court should disregard the FAC by striking it, and that the Court should rule on the demurrer.

Analysis

Demurrer

“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the Court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) “Our consideration of the facts alleged includes ‘those evidentiary facts found in recitals of exhibits attached to [the] complaint.’ [Citation.]” (Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1250.)

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

“(a) The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

“[A] Court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

“To survive a demurrer, the 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.)

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the Court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)

“Presumably, the purpose of the statute permitting amendments as of right before an answer is filed or a demurrer is ruled upon is to promote judicial efficiency and reduce the costs of litigation. If a defect in a pleading can be cured before the Defendant has answered or the Court has heard a demurrer, both judicial resources and attorney time will be saved in the process. . . . As we read the statute, a Plaintiff has a right to amend his or her pleading at any time before a responsive pleading is filed and even after a responsive pleading is filed up to the time of the hearing on the demurrer.” (Barton v. Khan (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1221.)

Plaintiff had a statutory right to file the amended complaint, which necessitates the taking of the hearing on demurrer off-calendar as moot.

Conduct of Counsel

The Court feels compelled to admonish Torbet’s counsel against directing personal attacks against Plaintiff’s counsel.

Torbet’s demurrer, as well as his reply, are riddled with personal attacks and thinly veiled insults against Plaintiff’s counsel. As just a few examples of the many that could be given:

“ . . . which her lawyer, Mr. Hale, has so recklessly and maliciously spread on the public record of this genteel community.: (Demurrer, p. 8, ll. 13-15.)

“As Mr. Hale tells it . . .” (Demurrer, p. 8, l. 27.)
 

“In Mr. Hale’s telling of it . . .” (Demurrer, p. 9, l. 2.)

“Mr. Hale claims that . . . “ (Demurrer, p. 9, ll. 5-6.)

“Mr. Hale continues with practiced innuendo.” (Demurrer, p. 9, l. 14.)

“In Mr. Hale’s deviant mind . . .” (Demurrer, p. 9, l. 18.)

“In Mr. Hale’s twisting of things . . .” (Demurrer, p. 9, l. 21.)

“Unwilling to give up the ghost to utter absurdity, Mr. Hale claims . . .” (Demurrer, p. 10, ll. 2-3.)

“Mr. Hale includes in his complaint, a sloppy, off-hand blurb . . .” (Demurrer, p. 16, ll. 11-12.)

“Of course, the possibility exists that Mr. Hale does remember this, but is attempting to fool everyone.” (Reply, p. 2, ll. 3-5.)

“Mr. Hale has, in his cynical, short-order cooking style . . .” (Reply, p. 2, ll. 13-14.)

There are many more examples that could be given. Hale, Plaintiff’s attorney, is mentioned in the demurrer and the reply more than any other individual. In fact, Hale is mentioned on every page. This is not Hale’s case and the allegations in the complaint are not Hale’s allegations. This is Plaintiff’s case and her allegations.

“ ‘ “Personal attacks on opposing counsel are improper and irrelevant to the issues.” ’ ” [Citations.]” (People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th 697, 764.)

Counsel shall not “make personally insulting or derogatory remarks directed at opposing counsel or impugn counsel's motives or character.” (Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency v. Dhaliwal (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1338-1339.)

“Personal attacks on the integrity of opposing counsel can constitute misconduct.” (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 484.)

“A lawyer must work to advance the lawful and legitimate interest of his or her client. This duty includes an obligation not to act abusively or discourteously. Zealous representation of the client’s interest should be carried out in a professional manner.” (Santa Barbara County Local Rules, Appendix 5, ¶ A.1.)

Zealous advocacy does not equate to unprofessional remarks. Torbet’s counsel will be ordered to refrain from levying personal attacks, or directing insulting insinuations, at opposing counsel.