Defendants’ Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
2025CUPP050195: ELYSIA WILKINSON vs MIDWEST VETERINARY PARTNERS, LLC, et al. 05/26/2026 in Department 43 Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
The morning calendar in courtroom 43 will normally begin at 8:45. Please arrive for your hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall and Zoom. Refer to the Courtroom 43 webpage for more information about remote appearances. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:30 a.m. If you wish to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the court day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made.
For Zoom appearances, all counsel appearing by Zoom must email the court at Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with a simultaneous copy to all other counsel/selfrepresented parties no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. INCLUDE THE PHRASE "ZOOM APPEARANCE ON (DATE OF HEARING)" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL. The email must identify the person who will make the appearance. You will receive the login information for your appearance in reply to your email. If appearing by Zoom, log into the hearing no later than 8:30 a.m. The Court will transfer you to the meeting room when your matter is called. Additional instructions can be found on the Courtroom 43 webpage. When you log in to Zoom, be sure that your name and the case name are used as your Zoom name. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM AT THE HEARING.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Coats's secretary, Ms. Brantner at 805- 477-8790, stating that you submit on the tentative. Or you may email Courtroom43@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not advise the Court that you submit on the tentative, or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
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?”
Motion:"Defendants’ Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint”
Tentative Ruling: “Defendants’ Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint’is sustained without leave to amend. The SAC does not plead sufficient facts sufficient to establish a duty. The only
2025CUPP050195: ELYSIA WILKINSON vs MIDWEST VETERINARY PARTNERS, LLC, et al.
allegation regarding a direct relationship is a bare conclusory allegation that is contradicted by other allegations in the complaint. It suffers from the same deficiencies noted by the Court in ruling on previous demurrers. (See Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 370.)
The demurrer to the First Amended Complaint was sustained, and leave was granted to amend to allege facts supporting the issue of duty owed by defendant to plaintiff. The Second Amended Complaint now vaguely alleges that Defendants “represented” to Plaintiff that the horse was safe to ride and was healthy enough and safe enough to engage in barrel racing. (SAC ¶ 29.) Viewed in a vacuum, this allegation may be sufficient as to a duty so as to survive demurrer. However, the SAC contains contradictory allegations that also appeared in the prior complaints.
The SAC alleges Plaintiff has “always checked with clients, including those in the instant matter, as to whether the horses bought to her were safe, and/or had pre-existing injuries so that Plaintiff knew whether they were safe to ride and so that Plaintiff knew how to care for them. (SAC ¶¶ 3, 24.) The SAC alleges that “the clients represented to Plaintiff that the horse had been completely cleared for barrel racing and riding by the veterinarian who checked the horse”. (SAC ¶ 4.) The SAC alleges “[b]ased upon information and belief, none of the above [finding of lameness in the horse] was told to the owners and thus not communicated to Plaintiff. (SAC ¶¶ 5, 26.)
The remainder of the complaint asserts facts which suggest that there was no direct communication between Plaintiff and Defendants. There is no allegation that Plaintiff ever had any direct interaction with Defendants or that Defendants’ opinions were intended specifically for Plaintiff. The complaint makes conclusory statements without factual support that the Defendants “clearly intended” for Plaintiff to rely on their representations.
1. Negligence Misrepresentation
Plaintiff added a new cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. The SAC does not plead the alleged misrepresentation with the required specificity for a cause of action sounding in fraud. The SAC does not state how the representation was made, where it was made, when it was made, and by what means it was made. Furthermore, this cause of action suffers from the same issue as above regarding the failure to establish a duty.
Moving party is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling and prepare and circulate a proposed order for the Court’s signature.
2