Adams vs. Colliers International Group, Inc.
Demurrer to Amended Complaint; Demurrer to Complaint; Motion to Compel Production; Motion to Compel Production; Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
# Case Name Tentative 1 24-01431664 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
Acevedo vs. El Tapatio Plaintiff Eliet Serna Acevado’s Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED. Dos Meicano Grill Under CCP §472, an amended complaint may be filed without leave of court when no answer has been filed. No answer has been filed in this case. Therefore, no leave of court is required to file a first amended complaint in this case.
Plaintiff is ordered to file a clean version of the First Amended Complaint forthwith. Personal service of the First Amended Complaint will be required, per Code. This ruling is made without prejudice to the filing of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint if necessary in the future. 2 25-01453685 1) Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2) Demurrer to Complaint Adams vs. Colliers 3) Motion to Compel Production International Group, 4) Motion to Compel Production Inc. 5) Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint
CONTINUED 10/22/2026 @ 10:00 AM
3 25-01477343 1) Demurrer to Amended Complaint 2) Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint Alphapet, Inc. vs. Wagner Motion No. 1:
The Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint (SAC) by Defendants Rock LLP, Brian J. Wagner and Amir Farahani is OVERRULED.
Procedural History:
On 11/20/25, the Court granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike the FAC as to paragraphs 35, 36, 41, 53, and 62 but denied the motion as to paragraphs 25 and 26. The Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer as to the professional negligence claim with leave to amend and overruled the demurrer as to the claim for violation of Business & Professions Code.
On 8/26/26, the Court partially granted Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion regarding the SAC as to paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, and 27. The ruling stated in part,
“The motion is denied to the extent the SAC seeks to re-allege claims that the Court found were not subject to the SLAPP statute, i.e. paragraphs 25 and 26 which alleged the law firm wrongfully represented certain of the LLC’s members and refused to provide information related to its representation of the LLC to the other member. This includes the SAC’s paragraphs 15, 18, and portions of paragraph 40 (except paragraph 40’s references to making false statements to ‘the court’). The motion is also denied as to the ‘incorporating’ allegations at paragraphs 28 and 32. However, to the
Cited authorities
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?”