AUSSIEKER vs GRAHAM, 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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Adam Chandler’s (“Chandler”) demurrer to Plaintiff Mark Aussieker’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is OVERRULED, as follows.

This action arises out of the alleged telemarking calls Defendants placed to a telephone number Plaintiff registered on the national Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff names as defendants in the FAC Javed Graham and Chandler, an individual dba Discover Solar. The FAC alleges causes of action for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(d) (Telemarketing without Mandated Safeguards), Penal Code § 631, and Penal Code § 632.

Chandler demurs to the FAC in its entirety on the basis that the FAC “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against [him] individually” because the alleged conduct “was solely undertaken by Solar Market Makers LLC, a Colorado limited liability company that has since been formally dissolved.” (Demurrer at p. 1.) Chandler submits a declaration in support of his demurrer,[1] in which he avers that “[a]ny work [he] performed related to sales, marketing, training, or implementation of automation or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013995: AUSSIEKER vs GRAHAM, et al. 10/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint in Department 54

artificial intelligence tools was done solely within the scope of [his] duties as a managing member of Solar Market Makers LLC and on behalf of the company.” (Chandler Decl. ¶ 5.)

The role of a demurrer is limited “- to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of a pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025 Update) ¶ 7:8 [citing cases].) “In reviewing . . . a demurrer, a court cannot consider . . . the substance of declarations, matter not subject to judicial notice, or documents judicially noticed but not accepted for the truth of their contents.” (Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 994.)

Here, Chandler’s demurrer is premised solely upon his declaration. He does not challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations in the FAC. As stated above, the Court cannot consider the substance of a declaration in ruling on a demurrer.

For the stated reasons, Chandler’s demurrer is overruled. Chandler shall file an answer to the FAC no later than October 20, 2025.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] The Court notes that the Chandler Declaration references two exhibits and represents that they are attached thereto. (Chandler Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) The Declaration filed with the Court does not include the referenced exhibits.