DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25627042·sf·Civil·Civil
Hearing 7 months agoOFF CALENDAR

LAURO ARIAS GONZALEZ VS. FILLMORE MERCHANTS ANDIMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION,INC. ET AL

DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Jan 22, 2026
Department
302
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLAURO ARIAS GONZALEZ
DefendantFILLMORE MERCHANTS ANDIMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION,INC.
DefendantTimothy Omi
DefendantPatti Mangan

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday January 22, 2026, Line 14. Defendants Timothy Omi, Patti Mangan and Fillmore Merchants and Improvement Association's unopposed Demurrer to Amended Complaint is OFF CALENDAR.

Defendants failed to demonstrate compliance with their meet-and-confer responsibilities. A party demurring to a pleading must meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading "[b]efore filing [the] demurrer." (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 (a).) The meeting must be "in person, by telephone or by video conference." (Ibid.) The meeting must take place at least five days before the date the motion must be filed. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(2.) The moving party must file a declaration with its moving papers demonstrating compliance with these requirements and/or that the opposing party failed to confer in good faith. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(3).)

Here, Defendants learned well in advance of the filing of the demurrer that Plaintiff's counsel had been suspended from practice. Upon that discovery and before seeking to take any action against Plaintiff, Defendants were obligated to contact her in writing, inform her of the suspension and inform her she needs to hire a new lawyer or represent herself in the case. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 286.) Instead, Defendants simply elected to file their demurrer without even trying to meet and confer. This is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the relevant statutes, including Code of Civi Procedure sections 286 and 430.41.

Defendants' time to respond to the complaint is extended by 30 days. Defendants are ordered to comply with section 286 forthwith, but no later than 5 court days from the date set for hearing of this demurrer.

The parties are admonished they must adhere to the caption set out in the initial pleading in the action. No party shall deviate from the caption (and both sides have here) until the court orders otherwise. Defendants are ordered to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the above and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share