Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car of San Francisco Co., LLC’s Motion to Strike and Demurrer
PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Conservatorship of Amos Neil Boykin 24PR000194
SEVENTH ACCOUNT AND REPORT OF CONSERVATOR; PETITION FOR ITS SETTLEMENT; FOR APPROVAL OF CONSERVATOR’S AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ADVANCED; AND FOR REDUCTION OF BOND
TENTATIVE RULING: The Court hereby appoints the Napa County Public Defender to represent the Conservatee. Should Conservator desire to have different counsel appointed, she may request oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 2.9, and prepare, for the Court’s signature, a proposed order appointing alternative counsel.
The matter is CONTINUED to June 10, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A to permit the Court Investigator to conduct a review and submit a Report.
In The Matter of Jose Estrada Cruz 25PR000312
REVIEW HEARING: STATUS OF FILING MC-356
APPEARANCE REQUIRED. The purpose of this hearing is to confirm petitioner’s filing of the “Receipt and Acknowledgement of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account (form MC-356)” following the Court’s order approving the compromise of claim for a minor and order to deposit funds in a blocked account. The matter has been continued twice to allow more time for Petitioner to file the MC-356 form. However, there is still no MC-356 form on file. Thus, appearances are required to explain the ongoing delay.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Mark Andrews v. Richard Rockwell et al 24CV000304
DEFENDANT ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR OF SAN FRANCISCO CO., LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DEMURRER
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion and demurrer are MOOT.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of
hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of San Francisco, LLC (“Enterprise” or “Defendant”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, for an order striking all causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiff Mark Andrews (“Plaintiff”) or, in the alternative, dismissing the SAC because the claims are subject to demurrer. (Notice of Motion, p. 1; Support Memo, pp. 5, 16.)
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?”
As relevant to this order, Defendant contends that: “On or around March 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (‘SAC’), which significantly expanded Plaintiff’s allegations against Enterprise. (See generally, SAC.) The only exception is the SAC removed Plaintiff’s cause of Action against Enterprise for conversion. (compare SAC COA 7 with FAC COA 7). Plaintiff did not provide Defendant any accompanying motion to amend when serving the SAC. (Declaration of Abigail Urquhart at Ex. 1).” (Support Memo, p. 5.) “[I]t is not clear to Enterprise whether it is required to respond to the FAC or SAC. Since the SAC is more comprehensive than the FAC, and still fails as a matter of law, the current motion addresses the allegations in the SAC as if it was filed.” (Support Memo, p. 5.)
Contrary to Defendant’s contentions, there is no SAC on file. The operative complaint, according to the Court’s files, is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on December 3, 2025. Because the motion and demurrer are directed at a pleading that does not appear in the Court’s files, they are MOOT.
As an ancillary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a substantive opposition to the instant motion without raising the fact that no SAC is on file. It, therefore, appears that both parties understood that an SAC had been filed. That said, any such SAC would have been subject to strike without Plaintiff first seeking leave from the Court to amend the FAC, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472. Given the apparent mutual misunderstanding by the parties, it seems appropriate to grant Defendant 10 days’ leave to respond to the FAC.
However, the parties shall immediately meet and confer to discuss Plaintiff’s intention with respect to the FAC (i.e., whether Plaintiff intends to move for leave to file an SAC). If Plaintiff intends to move for leave to file an SAC, the parties shall file a stipulation and proposed order which extends Defendant’s time to respond to the FAC with sufficient time to allow for the operative complaint to be settled prior to Defendant’s response becoming due. The parties’ meet and confer discussion should also include a good faith effort at informally resolving any anticipated motion practice (i.e., whether an SAC can cure the issues raised by Defendant’s present motion).
3