In The Matter of The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust, Dated Aug. 29 1994

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Respondent and Movant Ronald Melchin (“Respondent”) filed a demurrer to Petitioner George Baslaugh’s First Amended Petition. The motion is continued as follows.

Background

Respondent demurs to the petition in its entirety, and to all causes of action except the fourth cause of action, on the grounds that each fails to state facts sufficient to maintain a cause of again under Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10(e).)

Legal Standard

A demurrer may be sustained if “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Demurrer in Department 129

strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v.

Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.)

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a) requires that the demurring party shall meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” with the party filing the pleading that is the subject of the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) Subdivision (a)(3) of Section 430.41 requires that the demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either that the parties have met and conferred (including the means by which the parties met) without reaching an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer, or that the party subject to the demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request, or otherwise failed to meet and meet and confer in good faith.

Here, the declaration of John Lupton, counsel for Respondent, indicates that, on January 30, 2026, he emailed counsel for Old Dominion, but did not receive a reply before filing this demurrer. (Declaration of John Lupton, ¶ 2.) Counsel indicates he “advised” Petitioner’s attorneys of his intent to file this demurrer, but does not state whether this was a telephone call, email, or other form of meet and confer efforts. (Id.) The single email sent by counsel (attached as Ex. A), only three business days before Respondent filed this demurrer, is insufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Demurrer in Department 129

Accordingly, the matter is continued for Respondent’s counsel and Petitioner’s counsel to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference as required by statute. By no later than April 29, 2026, the parties shall file a joint statement detailing their meet and confer attempts addressing each of the issues raised in the demurrer. The parties shall identify which issues, if any, were resolved by the meet and confer process. If the all the issues raised by the demurrer are resolved, Respondent shall promptly contact the Court to drop the matter.

No further briefing is allowed without prior permission by the Court. The only filing permitted is that indicated above regarding meet and confer efforts.

On the Court’s own motion, the Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Petition scheduled for 4/15/2026 is continued to 05/6/2026 at 03:00 PM in Department 126 at William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)