Amir Edwards v. Jaswinder Dhinsa, et al.

rule 2.550(a)(2).)

Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Case Number: 25CHCV01966 DEFENDANT CLEARVIEW REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Motion filed on March 17, 2026. MOVING PARTY: Defendant Clearview Real Estate Holdings LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Amir Edwards NOTICE: OK. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendant Clearview Real Estate Holdings LLC seeks an order sustaining its demurrer to the first cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, third cause of action for abuse of process, fourth cause of action for civil conspiracy, and fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. RULING: Overruled as moot.

BACKGROUND On June 9, 2025, Amir Edwards (Plaintiff) filed the Complaint against Jaswinder Dhinsa (Dhinsa), Clearview Real Estate Holdings LLC (Clearview), and Does 1 through 10. On March 17, 2026, Clearview filed the present demurrer to the Complaint (Reservation No. 053874158499). The demurrer challenges all five causes of action alleged in the original Complaint. The hearing was originally set for April 22, 2026. On March 17, 2026, the Court continued the hearing to September 8, 2026. Clearview filed notice of the continuance on March 18, 2026.

On April 22, 2026, Dhinsa filed a separate demurrer to the original Complaint (Reservation No. 863287606357) which was set for hearing on July 13, 2026. On May 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. On July 13, 2026, the Court overruled Dhinsa's April 22, 2026 demurrer as moot. The Court ordered Defendants to file and serve a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint within 30 days. On August 11, 2026, Defendants filed a separate demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (Reservation No. 254274427080).

That demurrer is set for hearing on November 30, 2026.

DISCUSSION "A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 472, subd. (a).) When plaintiff files an amended complaint after a demurrer is filed, but before it is decided, the demurrer must be overruled as moot. (JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.) Here, Clearview demurs to Plaintiff's original Complaint.

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on May 6, 2026, after the demurrer was filed and before the September 8, 2026 hearing. The First Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint and is now the operative pleading. Clearview's demurrer no longer challenges the operative pleading. The demurrer is moot.

CONCLUSION Clearview's March 17, 2026 demurrer (Reservation No. 053874158499) is overruled as moot. Defendants' August 11, 2026 (Reservation No. 254274427080) remains set for hearing on November 30, 2026.

Case Number: 25CHCV02341 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: F46 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant John Nagle's ex parte application, supporting declaration, the information concerning the petition for writ of mandate, and Cross-Complainant PML, Inc.'s opposition. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a), the Court rules on the application without a hearing. The ex parte appearance scheduled for September 8, 2026, is VACATED.

REQUESTED RELIEF Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Nagle requests a 20-day extension, from September 8 through September 28, 2026, to respond to the First Amended Cross-Complaint. Nagle states that a petition for writ of mandate has been filed challenging the Court's August 21, 2026 order overruling Nagle's demurrer and that the requested extension would provide the Court of Appeal additional time to act on the petition and its request for a temporary stay.

EX PARTE STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c) requires an applicant to make an affirmative factual showing, in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge, of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or another statutory basis for granting relief ex parte. An approaching filing deadline may explain why relief is requested promptly, but it does not, without more, establish irreparable harm or immediate danger warranting ex parte intervention.

ANALYSIS The application establishes that Nagle's deadline to respond to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is approaching and that the Court of Appeal has not yet acted on the petition's request for a temporary stay. It does not, however, identify any concrete and irreparable harm that will result if Nagle is required to answer while the writ petition remains pending. The application does not show that filing an answer would moot the writ petition, impair the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction, waive the standing or necessary-party objections previously raised by demurrer, or otherwise prejudice Nagle's ability to pursue appellate relief. The writ's statement that Nagle seeks review "before being required to answer" identifies the procedural sequence Nagle prefers, but does not establish why filing an answer would cause irreparable harm.