DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26NNCV02572·la·Civil·Personal Injury/Intentional Tort
Hearing todayCMC CONTINUED; Demurrer SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; Motion to Strike GRANTED

NASHAT METRI vs RUDY RODRIGUEZ, et al.

Case Management Conference; Demurrer; Motion to Strike

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
X
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$500,000

Parties

PlaintiffNASHAT METRI
DefendantRUDY RODRIGUEZ
DefendantFatima Maria Pacheco Molina Chirla

Ruling

), "Attorneys" section, under the "Courtroom Information" link for Department X (Alhambra Courthouse). Trial counsel are ordered to personally appear - in court - for the Final Status Conference with a copy of their lodged binders so that same can be reviewed in preparation for trial. Unless waived by the parties, Plaintiffs are to give notice.

RUDY RODRIGUEZ, et al. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE On its own motion, the Case Management Conference is continued to November 19, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department X.

DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's complaint alleges a single cause of action identified as "Intentional Tort" against Defendants Rudy Rodriguez and Fatima Maria Pacheco Molina Chirla. Plaintiff alleges that, on March 5, 2026, Rodriguez approached Plaintiff outside Plaintiff's mother's property after being "sent by" Pacheco, punched Plaintiff in the face and throat, and caused Plaintiff to lose consciousness and require hospitalization. The complaint sufficiently identifies the alleged direct tortfeasor and the physical conduct attributed to him. It does not, however, allege that Pacheco personally struck Plaintiff. Its only allegation connecting Pacheco to the incident is that Rodriguez was "sent by" her. That allegation does not identify what Pacheco allegedly sent Rodriguez to do. The demurrer is sustained.

The motion to strike is GRANTED. In an action seeking actual or punitive damages for personal injury, the complaint must not state the amount demanded. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.10(b).) Instead, the amount may be disclosed through a statement of damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11. Here, Plaintiff designated this action as one for personal injury but stated a demand for $500,000 in paragraph 14. The stated amount is therefore not drawn in conformity with section 425.10(b), and must be stricken.

Plaintiff may file and serve a first amended complaint within 20 calendar days after service of notice of this ruling. Court is to give notice.

Case Number: 26NNCV02764 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: X #17 - VALERIA RAMOS vs RAFI KARNIK M KHACHADOORIAN The Court has reviewed the Case Management Statements filed by the parties. The Court issues the following Case Management Order: Plaintiff's medical damages currently do not exceed $50,000.

The parties in the above-captioned case are ordered to the Mediation Volunteer Panel (MVP), a court-connected program administered by the Los Angeles Superior Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Office. Cases referred to the MVP program will be eligible for three hours of virtual mediation at no cost with a qualified and impartial mediator who volunteers preparation time and the first three hours of the virtual mediation session. Thereafter, if the parties wish to continue the mediation, the mediator may charge the hourly rate as listed in their MVP profile listed on the Court's website at www.lacourt.org/ADR.

The ADR Office will email a detailed Notice of Referral to Mediation (Notice) to all parties and their attorneys of record. The Notice directs the parties or their attorneys to meet and confer regarding the selection of a mediator and submit an online Response to the Notice. Parties may select a mediator from the MVP profiles or request the ADR Office to assign a mediator. Mediator profiles, including contact information, areas of

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