Stephanie Bennett v. Tyrone Mack Cloyd, et al.

(Torrance Courthouse: Dept. M) September 10, 2026 DEPARTMENT M LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Dept. M issues tentative rulings in many, but not all motion hearings. There is no set time at which tentatives are posted. Please do not call the staff to inquire if a tentative will be posted.

If parties are satisfied with the ruling, parties may submit on the tentative. However, if an opposing party does not submit, they will be permitted to argue. Please check with the other side before calling the courtroom to submit. The staff does not keep track of which parties submitted and which did not, so please do not ask. If a matter is also a scheduling hearing (CMC, TSC, OSC etc) an appearance is still required even if a party submits on the tentative ruling.

COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Thursday, September 10, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Stephanie Bennett v. Tyrone Mack Cloyd, et al.

1. Sharona Eslamboly Hakim's, Counsel for Plaintiff Stephanie Bennett, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Sharona Eslamboly Hakim's, Counsel for Plaintiff Stephanie Bennett, Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is granted.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 13, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that she was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendants.

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Counsel states, in the declaration, valid reasons for withdrawal. Counsel states that there has been a breakdown in communication and the relationship between counsel and Plaintiff. The Court finds that the attorney has filed the required declaration. The Court also finds that the attorney has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why the attorney brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 284(2) instead of filing a consent under section 284(1). Therefore, the motion to be relieved as counsel is granted. The attorney is relieved as counsel of record for the client effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.

Sharona Eslamboly Hakim is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling. Case Number: 25TRCV00939 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: M LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Thursday, September 10, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Brett Dalton Lyon, et al. v. Joshua Nordike, et al. 25TRCV00939 1. Joshua Nordike's Demurrer to Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Joshua Nordike's Demurrer to Complaint is overruled.

Background

The Complaint was filed on March 21, 2025. This is an action for partition of the following real property: 1912 Earnest Avenue, Redondo Beach, California 90278.

Meet and Confer Defendant set forth meet and confer declarations in sufficient compliance with CCP Sec. 430.41. (Decl., Regis A. Guerin, P. 3).

Demurrer A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v.

Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., Sec. 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action." (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609-610.) Under Code Civil Procedure Sec. 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is