Francisca Esmeralda Medina, et al. v. Citiguard, Inc., et al.

documents when ruling on a demurrer. General demurrers can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable; evidence or extrinsic matters are not considered. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 430.30, 430.70; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

The truth of the contents of the deposition testimony are not subject to judicial notice and the Court cannot rely on them to resolve disputed factual issues regarding Plaintiffs' knowledge. When only viewing the pleading itself, the SAC does not show that the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant. A demurrer should be sustained where "the complaint shows on its face that the statute [of limitations] bars the action." (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.)

The SAC alleges that Barry Shy "was an individual who controlled Plaintiffs' wages, hours, and working conditions." (SAC, P. 2.) It alleges "Plaintiffs did not receive any wages for hours worked at the personal residence of B-SHY from B-SHY but received all compensation from HR Management, LLC." (Id., P. 4.) The face of the SAC does not demonstrate that Plaintiffs had knowledge of Barry's identity at the time the complaint was filed, which would bar their claims.

Disposition

Defendant Barry Shy's demurrer is overruled. Defendant Barry Shy is ordered to file his responsive pleading within 21 days.

9 - Francisca Esmeralda Medina, et al. v. Citiguard, Inc., et al. Cross-Complainant Primestor Development, LLC's Motion to Sever Cross-Complaint

Cros-Complainant Primestor Development, LLC moves to sever proceedings on its first amended cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Citiguard, Inc. from the trial on Plaintiff's underlying complaint. Primestor filed its operative first amended cross-complaint against Citiguard on May 21, 2026, alleging causes of action for (1) indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) apportionment; (4) declaratory relief; (5) express indemnity; (6) breach of contract; and (7) declaratory relief - duty to indemnify.

Primestor argues that separately trying its cross-complaint after the resolution of Plaintiff's complaint would moot or significantly narrow the issues to be tried in any separate proceeding on the cross-complaint. The Court has two concerns with the proposal. First, it appears to the Court that this motion is premature. When this motion was initially filed, trial was set for September 28, 2026. Now, trial has been continued to May 3, 2027. Additional discovery and motion practice could narrow or eliminate the premise for the motion.

Second, while the Court understands the benefit of severing Primestor's equitable claims for later resolution, the Court does not see any benefit of severing Primestor's legal claim for breach of contract from the trial on Plaintiff's complaint. Severing or bifurcating trials must "preserv[e] the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States." (CCP Sec. 1048(a).) "Where legal and equitable issues are joined in the same action the parties are entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues." (Arciero Ranches v. Meza (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 114, 123.) Trying the legal claim for breach of contract with the other legal issues appears more time efficient than seating a new jury.

The parties should be prepared to discuss these issues at the hearing on this motion. The Court reserves ruling on this issue until the date of the hearing. Case Number: BC529122 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: 510

No. 13 - Eric Zimmerman, et al. v. Ryan Johnson, et al. Judgment Creditor Eric Zimmerman's Motion for Sanctions

Judgment creditor Eric Zimmerman moves for an order awarding discovery sanctions in the amount of $59,236.79 against Judgment Debtor Ryan Johnson. The Court cannot award the relief sought.

Under California Rules of Court rule 3.1110(a), "A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order." (See also CCP Sec. 1010.) "A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought." (CCP Sec. 2023.040.)

Here, Zimmerman's notice of motion is deficient because it does not cite the statute under which he requests monetary sanctions. Without specifying the statutory basis, Johnson has not received adequate notice of the sanctions sought against him, in violation of due process. (See In re Marriage of Reese & Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1220.)

Disposition

Judgment Creditor Eric Zimmerman's motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice. | Home -->)" -->