SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 07/29/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINES 1-2 24CV444354 Nikka Freeman et al vs MOTION TO STRIKE & DEMURRER Neil Patel et al Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 1-2 LINES 3-4 24CV445907 Jin Yin vs Hiu Yip et al MOTION: SANCTIONS

Defendant’s motion for sanctions; untimely filed supplemental opposition briefing by Plaintiff; Defendant’s request to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition was considered; courts have a policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. The court admonishes Plaintiffs’ counsel to comply with the court rules and procedures with respect to future filings. Defendant’s request for continuance to file and serve substantive reply is GRANTED.

Defendant shall file the supplemental consolidated sanctions submission and supporting billing records by September 18, 2026. No further response by Plaintiff. The Court will thereafter determine the appropriate sanctions, if any, and the amount thereof.

Continued to September 30, 2026 at 9:00 in Department 12.

LINE 5 25CV455853 Silicon Valley MOTION TO STRIKE &/OR TAX COSTS Taxpayers Association, Inc. et al vs Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 5 City of Campbell et al. LINE 6 25CV459137 Alexander Xue DEMURRER vs EMC Santana Row, LLC Please Ctrl click (or scroll down to) Line 6

Calendar line 6 Case Name: 25CV459137 Case No.: Alexander Xue v. EMC Santana Row, LLC

Background

On February 18, 2025, self-represented plaintiff Alexander Xue (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against defendant EMC Santana Row, LLC (“Defendant”), asserting claims for violations of the Business and Professions Code and violation of the Civil Code. According to the allegations of the complaint, Defendant owns EMC Seafood & Raw Bar (“the Restaurant”) that Plaintiff visited in December 2024. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff intended to have a drink and was presented with a cocktail menu that contained the prices of each drink. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff found the prices to be reasonable, ordered, and thereafter paid his bill. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.) Once he received his receipt, Plaintiff noticed a “Surcharge Living Wage” in the amount of $1.08, or 3.48% of his $31.00 pre-tax subtotal. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff was surprised by the undisclosed charge that was added without his consent or prior knowledge. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.)

On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a demurrer to the answer. On September 10, 2025, the Court (Hon. Monahan) adopted its tentative ruling finding that no proof of service was filed and the demurrer was taken off calendar. On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed an identical demurrer to the answer, currently before the Court. Defendant opposes the demurrer. For the reasons stated below, the demurrer is overruled.

II.

Legal Standard

A plaintiff may demur to a defendant’s answer within 10 days of being served with the answer (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, subd. (b)) on three grounds: 1) failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense; 2) uncertainty; or 3) failure to state whether a contract alleged in the answer is written or oral. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.) The demurrer may be to the whole answer or to any one or more of the several defenses in the answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.50, subd. (b).) The plaintiff may not, however, demur to part of a defense and, in order to determine the sufficiency of a defense, it must be considered as a whole.

Each defense must be considered separately without regard to any other defense, and one defense does not become insufficient because it is inconsistent with any other parts of the answer. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733 (South Shore Land Co.).)

The critical inquiry when a plaintiff demurs to an answer is whether the answer raises a defense to plaintiff’s stated cause of action. (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 879-880.) Affirmative defenses presented in an answer must plead ultimate facts to the same extent as required in a complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) Thus, for any “new matter” for which a defendant has the burden of proving at trial, the defendant must plead supporting facts. (California Academy of Sciences v. County of Fresno (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1442.) Affirmative defenses consisting of legal conclusions will not survive demurrer. (Westly v. Board of Administration (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1117.)

“The determination whether an answer states a defense is governed by the same principles which are applicable in determining if a complaint states a cause of action.” (South Shore Land Co., supra, 226 Cal.App.2d at p. 732.) “[T]he demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer.” (Id. at p. 733.) Unlike a demurrer to the complaint, “the defect in question need not appear on the face of the answer” as “[t]he determination of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer.” (Ibid.)

III.

Analysis

Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of his demurrer consists of a single page with five case law quotes and various citations. The demurrer is devoid of any argument whatsoever. It appears from the quotes cited by Plaintiff that he attempts to argue that the affirmative defenses are conclusory and alleged with insufficient facts. (See Demurrer, ¶¶ 3-4.) However, the “absence of cogent legal argument . . . allows this court to treat the contention as waived.” (Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Bellflower Unified School Dist. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 927, 939; Perry v. City of San Diego (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 172, 188, fn. 8 [“It is not this court’s role to connect the dots.”].)

The Court declines to go through each of Defendant’s affirmative defenses on Plaintiff’s behalf. (See Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1055-1056 [a litigant appearing in propria persona is not entitled to special treatment].) Accordingly, the demurrer to Defendant’s answer is OVERRULED.

- oo0oo –