Orellana v. Copeland, Jr.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 224) August 21, 2026 DEPARTMENT 224 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Plaintiff's UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel the Attendance of Defendant at Deposition is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide Plaintiff a date within the next 30 days, on which he will appear for his deposition.

The request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $5,700 is DENIED. Because Defendant is self-represented, the Court finds he may not have understood on this occasion that he was subjecting himself to monetary sanctions by not complying with the requirement that he appear for deposition.

In the future, if Plaintiff must file motions to compel compliance with discovery demands (either written discovery or deposition), Defendant may move for issue, or terminating sanctions against Defendant, including striking of his Answer and entry of a default judgment. There are serious consequences for not complying with the law requiring parties to engage in discovery. Defendant may go to the Self-Help Center at the Los Angeles Law Library to learn the rules of civil discovery. Plaintiff to give notice and file proof of service of notice. Case Number: 25STCV22210 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: 224 Wilson v. Randee Paller et al.,

The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the First Affirmative Defense and SUSTAINED as to the Second through Fiftieth Affirmative Defenses. Leave to amend is granted as to the Second through Forty-Ninth Affirmative Defenses. Leave to amend is denied as to the Fiftieth Affirmative Defense. Defendants are to file a First Amended Answer in 20 days.

ANALYSIS

Introduction

On July 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint arising out of Plaintiffs' tenancy at the property located at 9218 Gerald Avenue, Northridge, California 91343, alleging that Defendants failed to remedy mold and other uninhabitable conditions at the property. On November 21, 2025, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint. On November 26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant Demurrer to Defendants' Answer. On December 16, 2025, Defendants filed an Opposition. On August 12, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP Sec.Sec. 430.41)

The Declaration of William Bloch, executed on November 26, 2025, sets forth the meet and confer efforts of counsel for the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the declaration does not satisfy the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, that "... 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." However, given how long the demurrer has been pending, the Court will exercise its discretion to address the merits.

Legal Standard

A party against whom an answer has been filed may object by demurrer. Unlike a demurrer to a complaint or cross-complaint, a demurrer to an answer is limited to three grounds: (a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense; (b) The answer is uncertain; or