Demurrer and motion to strike; Motion for sanctions
shall give notice of this ruling. Moving plaintiff shall ruling.
59.
59. Maranwe v. Maranwe v. The demurrer andand motion to strike by defendants Saunders Saunders & Saunders & Saunders & Associates, APC, Vasili Associates, APC, Vasili Papas, Papas, Gary Saunders, and Morena Associates, Associates, Elias are CONTINUED to July 20, 20, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. p.m. in Dept. Dept. APC APC C28. C28. Plaintiff’s Plaintiffs motion motion for sanctions is is also continued continued to that same date. same date. 2025- 2025- 01499956 01499956 Defendants’ Defendants’ demurrer andand motion to strike were originally heard on heard on 3-16-26, 3-16-26, and and continued continued on on that date to allow moving moving defendants to file declarations compliant with Code Civ.
Civ. Proc., Proc., §§ 430.41 §§ 430.41 and and 435.5, with with plaintiff ordered ordered to give notice. notice. did not appear on 3-16-26.) (Defendants did 3-16-26.) (ROA 57 [3-16-26 [3-16-26 order].) However, minute order].) However, there is no record record that plaintiff gave notice as ordered. gave ordered. And failed to file the And defendants failed ordered declarations. ordered declarations.
Further, there there is no proof of service of plaintiff’s plaintiff’s opposition opposition to the motion to strike. the demurrer and motion strike. (ROA 52.) 52.)
There is also no proof of service of plaintiff’s plaintiff's motion motion for sanctions. (ROA sanctions. (ROA 46, 46, 48.) 48.)
There is no There is no responsive responsive pleading pleading by by defendants defendants toto the the opposition opposition to the the demurrer and motion motion to strike, strike, or to the sanctions. (See Carlton v. motion for sanctions. v. Quint (2000) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, Cal.App.4th 690, 698 698 [response [response onon merits merits can can waive waive service service defect].) Accordingly, defect].) Accordingly, all all three three motions motions are are continued. continued.
As to the motion to strike, the demurrer and motion strike, the Court orders orders the parties to engage in meet and and confer efforts in compliance with Code with Code Civ. Civ. Proc., Proc., §§ §§ 430.41 430.41 and and 435.5 435.5 within within 10 10 days days of of today’s today ’s date, date, and and orders orders counsel counsel for moving moving defendants to file a supplemental a supplemental declaration declaration demonstrating demonstrating such such compliance compliance atat least five court days prior to the continued hearing. the continued hearing.
ordered to serve his opposition Plaintiff is ordered opposition to the demurrer and motion to motion to strike strike (ROA (ROA 52) 52) on on defendant defendant within within five five court court days days of today, of and to today, and file proof to file proof of of service service of of same same at at least least five five court court days prior to the continued hearing the continued hearing date. date. Any reply may be served per Code Civ. filed and served Civ. Proc., Proc., § 1005, 1005, subd. subd. (b). (b).
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?”
As to plaintiff’s plaintiff's motion motion for sanctions, sanctions, plaintiff is ordered ordered to serve the serve motion (ROA the motion (ROA 46, 46, 48) 48) on on defendant defendant within within five five court court days of today today’s’s date, date, and and to file proof of service of same at least five court days prior to the continued hearing the continued hearing date. date. Any opposition and/or opposition and/or reply reply may may be be filed filed and and served served per per Code Code Civ. Civ. Proc., § Proc., § 1005, 1005, subd. subd. (b). (b).
Plaintiff is Plaintiff is also also cautioned cautioned to to file file proper proper proofs proofs of of service service in in the the future. future.
The case management conference is is also continued continued to July 20, 20, p.m. 2026 at 2:00 p.m.
shall give notice of this ruling. Clerk shall ruling.
60.
60. Rhee v. Rhee v. Lee Lee Defendant Carole Carole Lee’s Lee’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. DENIED. 2023- 2023- 01327410 01327410 Defendant Lee Defendant Lee has has not not met met her her initial initial burden burden toto show show that that this this action has no merit; action merit; that plaintiff cannot prove an an element or some elements of a a cause of action; action; or that a a complete defense is established defense established as a matter of law entitling entitling defendant to to judgment. C.C.P. § 437c (p) (2), and judgment. C.C.P. and Hunter Hunter v.v. Pacific Pacific Corp. (1995) Mechanical Corp. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4 Cal.App.4* 1282, 1287. th 1282, 1287.
offered no evidence Lee offered evidence in support of the the motion. motion. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b)(1) explicitly requires that summary judgment motions ““shall shall be supported by affidavits, affidavits, declarations, admissions, declarations, admissions, answers answers to to interrogatories, interrogatories, depositions, and depositions, and matters of which judicial judicial notice shall or may be taken.” taken.”
Further, Lee Further, Lee has has not not submitted submitted a a Separate Separate Statement Statement in in support of support of her her motion, motion, in in contravention contravention of of Code Code ofof Civil Civil Procedure Procedure section 437c(b)(1) 437c(b)(1) which which explicitly requires ““[t]he [t]he supporting papers shall supporting shall include aa separate statement setting setting forth plainly forth plainly and and concisely concisely all all material material facts facts that that the moving the moving party contends are undisputed.” undisputed.” Each Each material material fact stated stated followed by a reference must be followed reference to the supporting supporting evidence. evidence. C.C.P. § C.C.P. § 437c. 437c.
Lee does Lee does submit submit some some documents documents in in support support with with her her reply reply to to this motion, but this motion, but those those documents documents were were not not considered considered byby the the court. As court. explained in As explained in San San Diego Diego Watercrafts, Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Inc. v. Wells Bank, (2002) 102 Fargo Bank, 102 Cal.App.45h 308, a a moving moving party may on new evidence filed not rely on filed with with its reply papers. papers. See also Moore also Moore v.v. William William Jessup University, (2015) Jessup University, (2015) 243 243 Cal.App.4* Cal.App.4 427, wherein th 427, wherein the the court court reiterated reiterated that that generally generally a a moving for summary judgment may not rely on new party moving with its evidence filed with its reply papers. papers.
Finally, the Finally, documents proffered the documents proffered in in reply reply are are not not accompanied accompanied verified translation. by a verified translation. California Rules of Court, Court, Rule 3.1110 3.1110 specifically provides provides that ““[e]xhibits [e]xhibits written written in a foreign foreign language must be accompanied by an English accompanied by an English translation, under oath by a certified under translation, certified a qualified qualified interpreter.” interpreter.” There There isis no no certification certification under under oath oath by by the the interpreter interpreter ofof the the subject documents. subject documents. As As aa result, result, these these documents documents are are of of no no value. evidentiary value.
shall give notice of this ruling. Defendant Lee shall ruling.