Demurrer
by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service, by: (1) serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court, or (2) manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court or the court’s electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party’s electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(c)(3); Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).)
The court record does not contain any notice filed by Defendant consenting to electronic service.
Also, the Proof of Service filed on 5/12/26 (ROA 123) does not show notice of the moving papers and such notice is untimely under the 45-day rule.
In sum, it appears Plaintiff did not provide proper and timely notice for the motions before the expiration of the 45-day rule.
In sum, the motions are DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
9 Grossman vs. 1031 Demurrer Crowdfunding, LLC OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. Section 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants a plaintiff the right to file an amended complaint in response to a demurrer or motion to strike directed at the original complaint, if filed and served by the date for filing an opposition brief.
Here, the filing of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on 7/13/26 renders the demurrer moot since the original Complaint has been superseded and the FAC is now the operative pleading. (See, e.g., State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131 [“Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.”]; JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477 [“the filing of an amended
complaint renders moot a demurrer to the original complaint”].)
10 Gordon vs. Gordon Demurrer (Case Management Conference)
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?”
1. Demurrer
The court OVERRULES in part, and SUSTAINS in part, Defendant TIMOTHY JAMES GORDON’s demurrer to Plaintiff NANCY GORDON’s Complaint. Specifically, the demurrer is OVERRULED as to the 1st and 3rd causes of action and SUSTAINED as to the 2nd and 4th causes of action. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend as to the 2nd and 4th causes of action.
The Complaint contains the following causes of action, each asserted against the only named defendant, Timothy James Gordon:
1. Elder abuse 2. Constructive fraud – Civ. Code, § 1573 3. Fraud 4. Quiet title
1st C/A (elder abuse)
Defendant first argues that there was no custodial or caretaking relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff for the purposes of the Act, and that Plaintiff has not alleged any egregious acts of abuse or neglect by Defendant.
On demurrer, the court reads the pleading in a light favoring the responding party. Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendant represented that if she moved to Defendant’s home, he and his family would take care of Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 53.) Such is sufficient to overcome the demurrer.