Tiffany Charbonneau vs Rod Wilson et al

Case Number

25CV02364

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling

The hearing on defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike, and the case management conference also set for this hearing, are continued to December 12, 2025. Counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and confer as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. The meet and confer is to be completed on or before October 31, 2025. Defendants shall file a declaration of counsel complying with section 430.41 on or before November 14, 2025, which shall state, to the extent appropriate, what issues have been resolved by the meet and confer. A first amended complaint, if any, shall be filed on or before November 21, 2025.

On April 16, 2025, plaintiff Tiffany Charbonneau filed her original complaint in this matter asserting 10 causes of action: (1) conversion; (2) fraud; (3) constructive fraud; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) breach of contract; (6) violation of Corporations Code section 25401; (7) violation of RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)); (8) unjust enrichment; (9) negligence; and (10) accounting.

On June 16, 2025, defendants Rod Wilson, Alfred Balitzer, Joseph Medawar, Jamie Villagomez, and Michael Raymond filed their demurrer to the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth causes of action of the complaint. Defendants concurrently filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint.

Attached to the demurrer and motion to strike are declarations of attorney Jerry R. Sparks addressing the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.41 (demurrer) and 435.5 (motion to strike). These requirements are parallel, so the court will discuss the demurer requirements.

“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).)

“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 parties shall meet and confer at least 5 days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least 5 days before the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the responsive pleading was previously due, and the demurring party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).)

“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 declaration of attorney Sparks states that the meet and confer process was initiated by email requesting dates for a meet and confer. (Sparks decl., ¶ 3.) The remainder of the declaration discusses the unwillingness of counsel for plaintiff, attorney John J. Thyne, to grant an extension of time to respond to the complaint. (Sparks decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendants did not file a declaration as provided by section 430.41, subdivision (a)(2) which would have automatically extended the time to respond and would have addressed the issue asserted by Sparks regarding the need to file a responsive pleading by the due date.

Insofar as the meet and confer process did not take place as contemplated by section 430.41, the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike will be continued to permit the parties to meet and confer.