DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
July 10, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings
18. PC20200294 STEVEN P. VIANI ET AL VS. ROGER LEASURE ET AL DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter arises from Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first amended verified complaint filed on February 17, 2026. The Court ordered the parties to engage in meaningful meet and confer efforts to discuss Defendant’s eleven arguments in an effort to minimize the issues before using judicial resources on May 8, 2026. The Court is in receipt of the status reports filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant, Roger Leasure (“Defendant”), on June 26, 2026. The Parties indicate that meet and confer efforts have been made but were unsuccessful.
The Parties are in agreement to engage in another meet and confer in early July to discuss further. Parties are to immediately begin the meet and confer process on this demurrer filed February 17, 2026. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on video conference or in person in a good faith effort to resolve each matter on an item-by-item basis. Both parties are referred to standards of professionalism and civility as discussed in Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439; and Manzetti v.
Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 380, fn.8. The meet and confer meeting(s) is to be recorded and the recording is to be made available to the Court at the hearing. All parties/attorneys are ordered to make the recording or may all agree to only one party making the recording. No later than August 28, 2026, the parties shall file a JOINT status report of no more than 5 pages outlining which, if any, items remain in dispute and why, including any request for sanctions. Failure to sign and participate in drafting the joint report will open each side to monetary sanctions of for failure to follow this Order pursuant to California Rules of Court 5.14 and 5.98.
The parties shall not file a response or reply papers or any other papers in support or opposition of this motion. The court will only consider the joint status report that should explain what item(s) remains in dispute and the legal reasons why it’s in dispute. Parties shall explain the amount of monetary sanctions sought and the reasons why within the joint status report such that the court can address the same in any subsequent order individually. The court reminds the parties that it is not enough to refer the court back to the original papers or to other papers filed in association with each matter or previous status report.
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?”
Moreover, the joint status report(s) should proceed to list items remaining in dispute along with the legal reason(s) why. The parties shall submit a joint status report that complies with CRC 3.1345 which explains why a specific request is in dispute and each party’s position. Parties
July 10, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings
should be careful to delineate the items in dispute in such a way that the Court will be fully aware as to which set of discovery the item in dispute is referring. If an item is not specifically listed and briefed with applicable points and authorities in the joint status report, the Court will assume that the issue has been resolved. The parties are required to be reasonable in this process or face additional monetary sanctions. A courtesy copy of the joint status report(s) shall be delivered electronically to Department 9.
The hearing on this motion is scheduled on September 4, 2026 at 8:35 AM in Department 9. TENTATIVE RULING #18: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 4, 2026 AT 8:35 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 9. PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER AS OUTLINED IN THE TENTATIVE RULING. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M.
ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M.
ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
40