Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint
Accordingly, parties are hereby once against ordered to engage in further meet and confer "either in person, by telephone or by videoconference" to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery, and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing. ((Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2016.040; 2017.010).
Furthermore, argument is not the same as informal negotiation, and a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that Counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).
The Court wholly expects Defendant's Counsel to fully engage in the ordered meet and confer, failing which the court will consider the issuance of sanctions against Defendant's Counsel.
This matter is continued to August 19, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court. The parties shall file a joint status statement, or separate statements not exceeding five (5) pages if a joint statement cannot be prepared, advising the Court whether the discovery disputes have been resolved or narrowed and identifying any issues that remain for adjudication no later than August 12, 2026.
CV-25-011611 - CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs PAGE, MATTHEW - Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - OVERRULED in its entirety.
The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract and has adequately alleged ownership of the subject account. The Complaint is not uncertain within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(b) or (f). Defendant's arguments regarding completeness of assignment documents, authentication, and admissibility of evidence concern matters of proof and do not establish a pleading defect. Venue is proper in Stanislaus County. Plaintiff's failure to file opposition does not alter the Court's independent determination that the Complaint is legally sufficient.
Defendant shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint within ten (10) days of service of notice of entry of this order. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).)
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***
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?”