Demurrer
prepetition debt becomes discharged under section 727.”)).
Both Defendant and Plaintiff acknowledge that the determination of whether or not a claim is dischargeable is in the exclusive jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court. (Both citing Grogan v. Garner (1991) 498 U.S. 279, 284.) The resolution of whether or not this court has jurisdiction to litigate Plaintiff’s claims, therefore, appears to be within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to decide and not this court.
To the extent that Defendant is right, Defendant may enforce Defendant’s position by filing a motion to reopen the case under 11 USC § 350(b) to enforce the discharge order and enjoin the continuation of this action under 11 U.S.C § 524(a)(2). To the extent that Plaintiff is right, Plaintiff may seek a determination that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C §523 in the bankruptcy court.
This action is, therefore, stayed as against Defendant Johan Frankenberger only, until a determination by a bankruptcy court that this action may proceed in this court, except Plaintiff may obtain discovery from Johan Frankenberger, as a witness, relating to Defendant NB Palmilla, LLC d/b/a Sharkeez’s liability on Plaintiff’s claims.
Within 14 days of this order, the parties are ordered to meet and confer on the logistics of obtaining a bankruptcy court determination on whether or not Defendant’s discharge order covers Plaintiff’s claims and/or whether or not Plaintiff’s claims are nondischargeable.
The court sets a status conference on the status of any bankruptcy rulings for October 20, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this Department. The parties shall file a joint status conference statement regarding the status of any bankruptcy proceedings at least 9 court days prior to the status conference.
This action will continue to proceed as against Defendants NB Palmilla, LLC d/b/a Sharkeez.
Moving Defendant to give notice.
4 Sanmina TENTATIVE RULING: Corporation vs. Gemayel Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sanmina Corporation’s demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Complainant George Gemayel’s cross-complaint is CONTINUED to August 12, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in this Department.
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?”
Civ. Proc. § 430.41, subd. (a) provides: “(a) Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.”
This section also provides that the demurring party “shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the following:
(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer. (B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41, subd. (a)(3)).
Moving party failed to comply with this requirement. There is no declaration. Accordingly, the court continues the demurrer to August 12, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in this Department, and orders the parties to meet and confer in compliance with Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.
Moving party shall give notice.
5 Ng vs. Pacific Premier Bank TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Pacific Premier Bank, N.A.’s motion to compel arbitration of all of Plaintiff Amy Ng’s claims and to stay the action, or alternatively to compel arbitration of all claims except the pregnancy harassment claim and to stay the action, is DENIED.
Defendant’s request for judicial notice (Exhibits A-D) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 459.)
Agreement to Arbitrate
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff executed four arbitration agreements during her employment, including the operative 2023 Mutual Arbitration Agreement (“MAA”) signed on February 8, 2023.