Rodriguez v. Mahon

The Case Management Conference is continued to August 06, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

Plaintiff to give notice.

2 Rodriguez v. The unopposed Demurrer by Defendants Michael Mahon, Obie Walli, Eli Mahon Realty Investments, LLC and Exclusive Lifestyles SoCal, LLC to Plaintiffs Jessie Rodriguez; Josh Painter, J. Painter Real Estate, LLC and J. Painter, Inc.; Amy Green, individually, and as trustee of the Amy Green Trust u/a/d May 15, 2001; Peter Lorimer; Jose Zavalza; Oscar Mendoza; Jason Lucero; ("Avance"); ZMR Real Estate, Inc.; and LMM Real Estate, Inc.’s (aka “All Plaintiffs except for Danny Morel and Avance Real Estate, Inc.”) FAC filed under ROA 171 is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

The failure to oppose a demurrer may be construed as having abandoned the claims. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 (“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County's demurrer to this portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal. Accordingly, we deem plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue”).) In addition, it is axiomatic the failure to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v.

Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 562, 566 (“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”); Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 507, 529 (“failure to address the threshold question . . . effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”); Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1424 (issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it).)

Here, there is no opposition to the Demurrer and therefore, the court deems the Demurrer on the grounds stated as unopposed and construes the failure to oppose the Demurrer as an abandonment of the claims argued therein.

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer in full, but nevertheless GRANTS Plaintiffs 20 days leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Management Conference

The Case Management Conference is continued to August 06, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

Plaintiff to give notice.

3 Ruby v. Farano Plaintiffs Paula Sanburg Ruby and Barry Ruby move to compel further responses from Defendant Charles M. Farano to Requests for Admission, Set One. For the following reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

A party may move to compel further responses to requests for admission where an answer is evasive or incomplete, or where an

4