DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2026-01533151-CU-WM-CJC·orange·Civil·Writ of Mandate
Hearing todayVACATED

Buriyev vs. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
C31
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerBuriyev
RespondentCalifornia Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

Ruling

not sufficiently allege when the actions alleged occurred for purposes of the statute of limitations.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a red-lined and clean version of the amended pleading.

Clerk to give notice.

Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Defendants David Byungik Oh and The Happier Church’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend.

With respect to Plaintiff’s second cause of action, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to support a request for punitive damages. (See Compl. ¶ 11.)

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a red-lined and clean version of the amended pleading.

Clerk to give notice.

9 Buriyev vs. Demurrer to Petition for Writ of Mandate California Vacated – first amended petition was filed. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 30-2026- 01533151-CU- WM-CJC 10 Burke vs. City of Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Newport Beach Adjudication 30-2024- Defendant City of Newport Beach motion for summary 01436236-CU- judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication PA-CJC GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice (“RJN”) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Defendant’s evidentiary objections (ROA 172) are OVERRULED.

The court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s objections (ROA 147 & 166) because they are not numbered consecutively. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b); see Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [court may decline to rule on objections not filed in conformity with formatting rules nor is court required to give party second chance at filing properly formatted objections].) The court also declines to consider objections stated in Plaintiff’s responsive separate statement (ROA 131) because they do not refer

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