| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Thursday, July 10, 2025, Line 4. DEFENDANT PRIORITY 1, INC., DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS PRIORITY-1 LOGISTICS DEMURRER to 1ST Amended COMPLAINT.
Defendant Priority 1, Inc.'s demurrer to all four causes of action alleged in the first amended complaint (FAC) filed by plaintiffs Brian MacGregor and Carey Sukow is overruled as to all four causes of action.
The sole grounds for the demurrer is that all four claims against Priority are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act because those claims are based on Priority's broker services. The FAC does not allege that Priority is sued because of broker services it performed. Rather, paragraph 8 of the FAC alleges that Priority "organized, coordinated and/or participated" with others in "the transportation of the Subject Bar."
Priority seeks to fill this missing allegation by requesting judicial notice that it is a property broker licensed by the United States Department of Transportation and that the "only reasonable interpretation " is "that Plaintiffs' claims against Priority-1 are predicated on its apparent selection of a motor carrier to transport freight." Priority cites no authority, nor is the court aware of any, that on a demurrer a California trial court may engage in a "reasonable interpretation" analysis of alleged facts in a pleading, as opposed to accepting as true the facts as alleged and liberally construing them in favor of the pleading party. Because Priority's broker license does not establish as a matter of law that the claims against it are based on broker services, its preemption argument fails at this stage of the case.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/HEK) | |