DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0055953·placer·Civil·Civil
Hearing in about 2 hoursCONTINUED

Safe Nation Found. v. Wildlife Heritage Found.

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
32
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 6, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSafe Nation Found.
DefendantWildlife Heritage Found.

Ruling

Order to Show Cause

The court on its own motion schedules this matter for an order to show cause hearing regarding settlement and/or dismissal on October 27, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 32. The parties are reminded that any requested dismissal of class actions must meet the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.770.

10. S-CV-0055953 Safe Nation Found. v. Wildlife Heritage Found.

The demurrer to the second amended complaint is continued to October 6, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 to be heard together with another motion filed in this action. No further briefing is permitted.

11. S-CV-0056073 Berg, Jill Elaine v. Berg, Brendon

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted. (Coe Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) Plaintiffs shall file and serve their second amended complaint by September 4, 2026.

12. S-CV-0056213 Mora, Michael F v. Cavanaugh, Shannon G

Cross-defendant is advised the notice of motion must include notice of the court’s tentative ruling procedures. (Local Rule 20.2.3(C).)

Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint (“XC”)

Cross-defendant demurs to the second cause of action of the cross-complaint for slander of title contending it fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Cross-complainants oppose the demurrer.

Cross-defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

A party may demur where the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, not the truth of the allegations or the accuracy of the described conduct. (Bader v. Anderson (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 775, 787.) The allegations in the pleadings are deemed true no matter how improbable they may seem. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) However, the court does not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of facts or law. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6.) The court may only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice. (Rea v. Blue Shield of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223.)

9

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