Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(Compton Courthouse: Dept. A) August 14, 2026 DEPARTMENT A LAW AND MOTION RULINGS INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must: 1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and 3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u i/main.aspx’casetype=civil
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT VANESSA VARGAS, Plaintiff, vs. ALFREDO VARGAS RAMIREZ, Defendant. |)))))))))))))))) | CASE NO: 25CMCV01691 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Dept. A DATE: August 14, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M. COMPLAINT FILED: 10/07/2025 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED: 01/29/2026 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED: 07/27/2026 TRIAL: 06/20/2028 | MOVING PARTY: Defendant Alfredo Vargas Ramirez RESPONDING PARTY: None 1.
Background
This is an action for partition. Plaintiff Vanessa Vargas ("Plaintiff") alleges that she has power of attorney, including authority to file suit, for Tomas Vargas, the real party in interest for this action. Plaintiff alleges that Tomas Vargas and defendant Alfredo Vargas Ramirez ("Defendant") are joint tenants as owners of the property located at 11814 and 11814 1/2 Pope Ave., Lynwood, CA 90262 (the "Property"). Plaintiff seeks partition by sale of the Property.
2.
Discussion
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to amend the complaint. Defendant contends that the court, on May 20, 2026, sustained Defendant's demurrer with leave to amend and that Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. Under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 581, subd. (f)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint as to a defendant after a demurrer is sustained to that complaint without leave to amend and either party moves for dismissal.
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?”
Dismissal is within the court's discretion, not mandatory. (Harlan v. Department of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 874.) On May 20, 2026, the court sustained Defendant's demurrer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") with leave to amend. Notice of ruling was filed on May 21, 2026. Although the court did not set forth the date by which amendment was required, if no such order is expressly made, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320 sets forth a 10-day deadline to file an amended pleading. (Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320,
subd. (g). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on July 27, 2026, substantially after the 10-day deadline, and after this motion was filed putting Plaintiff on notice that no amended pleading had been filed. Although Plaintiff's SAC was untimely, the court exercises its discretion to decline to dismiss the action. The demurrer to the FAC was sustained on procedural grounds, not substantive ones, and Plaintiff has since filed an SAC, albeit an untimely one. The court determines that dismissal of the action, under the circumstances, would not be in the interests of justice. Defendant contends that dismissal is mandatory; however, under the express text of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 581 and accompanying case law, Defendant is incorrect, and dismissal is discretionary.
3.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss. The clerk is directed to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 14, 2026 Hon. Elizabeth L. Bradley Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->