DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2025-01511904·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

WEBER VS. MORADO

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jul 7, 2026
Department
C32
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 4, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffWEBER
DefendantCORINNE MORADO
DefendantGENCARE CONNECTS, INC.
DefendantDAIAN CORPORATION

Ruling

trust claim, which is the only claim which purports to affect the title of the properties. Accordingly, the lis pendens is expunged.

7. WEBER VS. MORADO 2025-01511904 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants Corinne Morado, Gencare Connects, Inc., and Daian Corporation’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to 8/4/26, at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32 as Defendants’ counsel did not sufficiently meet and confer prior to filing the demurrer.

Before filing a demurrer, the moving party shall meet and confer with the opposing party in person, by telephone, or by video conference at least 5 days before a responsive pleading is due to see if a resolution can be reached on the objections to the pleading. (Code Civ. Pro., § 430.41, subds. (a), (a)(2).)

Counsel for Corinne Morado, Gencare Connects, Inc., and Daian Corporation states his office sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a letter setting forth grounds for demurrer on 1/26/26. (Tong Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Counsel then attempted to follow up with Plaintiffs’ counsel by telephone by leaving voicemails and also sending emails. (Tong Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. B.) Plaintiffs’ counsel did not return his phone calls or email. (Tong Decl., ¶ 3.)

This does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement.

The Court ORDERS the parties to meaningfully meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference (email/letter is insufficient) concerning the issues raised in the demurrer. Defendants are to file and serve a declaration no later than nine (9) court days before the hearing date describing the parties’ meet and confer efforts, and specifying what issues have been resolved, or remain for the Court to resolve. If no declaration is timely filed, the Court will construe this to mean that the issues have been resolved and will take the demurrer off-calendar.

8. LAW OFFICES OF MARK B. PLUMMER, PC VS. ALAI 2018-01002061 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION The Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of the First Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC) of Nili N. Alai, M.D. (Alai) and Siamak Nabili, M.D. (Nabili) by Cross-Defendants Law Offices of Mark B. Plummer (Law Office) and Mark B. Plummer (Plummer) (sometimes collectively “Movants”) is DENIED.

Movants’ request for judicial notice is granted as to the court records specified therein. (Evid. Code § 452.)

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share