CASTOR vs SONO BELLO INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al.

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

25CV014904: CASTOR vs SONO BELLO INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D

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: *** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating demurring defendants’ service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 8/13/2025, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Demurring defendants are directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

The notice of demurrer does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Demurring defendants are directed to contact opposing party and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If demurring defendants are unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, demurring defendants are ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Plaintiff’s opposition fails to identify the correct court for this action and also fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(1) and (3)-(4).

Defendants Body Contour Centers, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello and Afshin Eslami, M.D.’s demurrer to plaintiff in pro per Castor’s complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff’s opposition argues inter alia that this demurrer was not timely filed and served within 30 days of defendants being served with the summons & complaint on 6/30/2025. However, according to the proof of service filed on 7/1/2025, the summons & complaint were actually served on 7/1/2025, not 6/30/2025, and served on “Sonos Bello Inc” only. As such, any response to the complaint by this defendant was due no earlier than 7/31/2025 and because the 7/1/2025 proof of service does not attest to any service of the summons & complaint on defendant Eslami, no response from this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV014904: CASTOR vs SONO BELLO INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D

defendant was due by this 7/31/2025 date (or any other date).

Regardless, on 7/31/2025, defendants filed a “Notice of Initiating Mandatory Meet and Confer Process” and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §430.41(a)(2), both defendants were therefore entitled to an automatic 30-day extension for responding to the complaint. Thus, the Court finds that defendants’ demurrer filed on 8/11/2025 was indeed timely and therefore, it will not be stricken or overruled on grounds of untimeliness as requested by the opposition.

However, defendants’ demurrer to the complaint is on the Court’s own motion CONTINUED to 7/7/2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department because defendants did not file and serve with this demurrer any declaration which satisfies the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §430.41, which requires the demurring parties to meet-andconfer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” with the party filing the pleading that is the subject of the demurrer. (Bold added for emphasis.)

Here, the declaration of attorney Cox in support of this demurrer indicates that the meetand-confer efforts were conducted solely by an exchange of emails but such communication by email does not satisfy the express statutory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §430.41. Indeed, the purpose of requiring meet-and-confer sessions to be conduct “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” is to maximize the resolution of disputes by fostering an open dialogue that is not constrained by the mere exchange of emails and/or letters.

In light of the foregoing, demurring defendants shall pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §430.41(a) meet and confer ““in person, by telephone, or by video conference” with plaintiff and file and serve no later than 6/16/2026 a declaration in conformity with §430.41(a)(3). This declaration shall also identify any issues raised by the demurrer which have been resolved via the meet-and-confer process and no longer need resolution by the Court.

Defendants to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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