General Demurrer; Motion to Strike
208 Cots vs. Cats Noah Green, Esq.’s (Moving Counsel) motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Donald Cots is GRANTED.
The Court will interlineate the new hearing date on the OSC into the proposed order.
Moving Counsel shall serve the signed order on Plaintiff and all parties that have appeared. Moving Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon Plaintiff and all other parties.
The court continues the OSC re: dismissal of complaint for failure to serve defendant from 7/13/26 to 10/12/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.
Moving Counsel shall give notice.
209 Briggs & The general demurrer of cross-defendant Briggs & Alexander, A Alexander, APLC, to the first cause of action in the Professional cross-complaint of cross-complainants The Dodell Law Law Corporation and Herbert L. Dodell is Corporation vs. SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. The Dodell Law The general and special demurrers to the third Corporation cause of action in the cross-complaint is OVERRULED.
The propriety of a cross-complaint against a stakeholder in an interpleader action is somewhat in dispute. (See, e.g., Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2026 update), Interpleader, § 2:491.1, and CEB, Civil Procedure Before Trial (2026 update), Interpleader, § 28.30.)
Here, the cross-complaint relates to the funds held in the escrow account by moving cross-defendant in its role as escrow holder. (See cross-complaint at ¶¶ 14 and 15.) The cross-complaint further alleges
that the moving cross-defendant breached its duty to act as a neutral party and colluded with other cross-defendants for their financial benefit. (See cross-complaint at ¶¶ 38 and 39.)
Thus, the cross-complaint relates to the interpleader and is properly asserted in this case.
First cause of action for declaratory relief. The elements of a claim for declaratory relief are: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to a plaintiff's rights or obligations. (Waterford Property Co. v. County of Orange (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 530, 539.)
Moving cross-defendant contends that this cause of action fails because it does not present any disputes suitable for judicial resolution. Specifically, moving cross-defendant contends that the first cause of action only contains challenges to the arbitration award that are properly brought through a petition to modify or correct that award. It also contends that the cause of action contains demands for compensation that should have been pled as separate causes of action.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
In fact, while cross-complainants’ first cause of action seeks a judicial determination of the rights and obligations of the cross-complainants and crossdefendants, they appear to be challenging the correctness of the arbitration award, among other things. They allege as follows in ¶ 32:
Cross-Complainants desire a judicial determination and resolution of the rights, duties, responsibilities, and obligations as between and mount Cross- Complainants . . . relating to Cross-Complainants’ legal work for the Redding Parties, the amounts the Redding Parties presently owe Cross-Complainants for such legal work, the Arbitrator Ruling, the
Escrow, and related topics alleged in this Cross- Complaint as set forth in Paragraph 32, above [sic]. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances.
This allegation is less than clear as to what judicial determination cross-complainants seek with respect to the moving cross-defendant.
The demurrer to the first cause of action for declaratory relief is sustained with leave to amend.
Third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Although moving cross-defendant apparently does not deny that, as an escrow holder, it owed a fiduciary duty to the parties to the escrow, including responding cross-complainants, it contends that the third cause of action fails because it does not allege the terms of the escrow agreement that prescribe those fiduciary duties.
Here, the cross-complaint alleges that crossdefendant breached its fiduciary duty to be neutral with respect to parties to the escrow in that it had one-sided communications with the other crossdefendants and colluded with them.
The cause of action is sufficiently set forth, and the demurrer is overruled.
Motion to Stike The motion of cross-defendant Briggs & Alexander, APLC, to strike portions of the cross-complaint of cross-complainants The Dodell Law Corporation and Herbert L. Dodell is DENIED for failure to comply with CRC 3.1234.
The 7/13/26 CMC is continued to 10/12/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.
Cross-defendant shall give notice.