DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT AS TO CROSS-DEFENDANT COING, INC.
August 4, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 13 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 8 24-CIV-02856 NENAD MILANOVIC, ET AL. VS. ALICIA CHAN, ET AL.
NENAD MILANOVIC MATTHEW D. HALEY ALICIA CHAN STEPHEN C. TOSCHI
DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT AS TO CROSS-DEFENDANT COING, INC.
TENTATIVE RULING:
The demurrer is ordered off calendar. Cross-defendant did not provide proper notice of the hearing date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1)) and, therefore, the court must deny the demurrer because it lacks jurisdiction to hear it. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205 [“court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.”].)
At the time of filing, the hearing date on the notice of motion was changed. To date, the court’s record does not reflect the filing or service of an amended notice. While cross-complainants filed an opposition brief, they did not substantively reply and thus did not waive the defect. (See Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1288; (Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 929.)
If the tentative ruling is not contested, it shall become the order of the court without the need for a formal order.
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?”