Demurrer; Motion to Strike; Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record
thereafter, on 2/24/26. Plaintiff does not show that Defendants acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate, such as by engaging in extensive discovery, filing substantive motions, or posting jury fees.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration.
In sum, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
The court also VACATES the 11/23/26 jury trial and STAYS this action pending resolution of the parties’ arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)
The court sets a Status Conference re Arbitration for November 16, 2026 at 9:00 am, in Dept. W8. Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL file and serve a status report regarding the arbitration no later than 10 court days prior to the hearing.
Defendants to give notice.
18 Wong vs. Makhail Demurrer (re Third Amended Complaint) (x2) Motion to Strike Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record (x2)
The operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), which contains a single cause of action for “invasion of privacy through publication of private facts and false light publicity”, asserted against all defendants.
Plaintiffs’ opposing briefs (ROAs 427, 429) are unhelpful. The briefs fail to state whether they are responding to the demurrer/motion to strike brought by Defendant Makhail or Defendants Powerstone and Mourer, or both. More importantly, Plaintiffs appear to be responding to arguments not made in any of the moving papers (e.g., statute of limitations, standing, sham pleading) and claims not made in the TAC (e.g., fraud, IIED, NIED).
Plaintiffs’ counsel should be prepared to discuss these defects in the opposing papers at the hearing.
1. Makhail
Demurrer
The court OVERRULES Defendants PAUL MAKHAIL’s uncertainty demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Plaintiffs DOUGLAS WONG and JENNIFER JING. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).)
Makhail argues that this court previously found that the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was “uncertain”, and on this basis, Makhail now argues that the TAC “did not resolve the uncertainty.” (Opp’n Br., 3:20-25.)
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?”
Not so. Makhail previously demurred generally to the SAC and the demurrer was overruled. (ROA 312.) Makhail did not previously demur to the SAC on the ground of uncertainty. (Id.) Piecemeal demurrers are not permitted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(b).)
Further, this court did not find that the SAC was “uncertain”. Again, Makhail’s demurrer was overruled. It was overruled after Makhail argued, but failed to show, that the purported publication was public (versus private). The court stated, “The court cannot determine at this pleading stage that the information was public, and not private, or vice versa. Neither side cites authority sufficient to support their argument. And with the demurrer here, the court must read the SAC liberally and in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs.” (2/10/26 Minute Order [ROA 369], p. 2.)
Nor did co-defendants demur to the SAC on the ground of uncertainty. (ROA 299.) While the court sustained the general demurrer of co-defendants to the SAC, the court did so on the ground that the SAC contains insufficient facts “to show wrongdoing by either Powerstone or Mourer.” (ROA 369, p. 4.)
Makhail’s demurrer is OVERRULED.
Motion to Strike
The court DENIES Defendant PAUL MAKHAIL’s motion to strike portions of the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Plaintiffs DOUGLAS WONG and JENNIFER JING.
Makhail moves to strike the following from the TAC:
“Although in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, there were allegations about an incident in June 2022 in a paragraph that preceded the allegations about the poster being hung, no date was given as to when a ‘letter’ was posted in the guardhouse. The Complaint also alleged that there was not just one letter posted in the guardhouse but two.”
(TAC, p. 6, ¶ 30, lines 3-6.)
Makhail argues that this paragraph exceeds the scope of this court’s ruling permitting leave to amend. (See 2/10/26 Order.)
The court disagrees. The paragraph appears to address a contradiction raised by co-defendants in their demurrer to the SAC. (See 2/10/26 Minute Order, at p. 4.) As such, the portion sought to be stricken does not exceed the scope of the leave previously granted.
In sum, the court DENIES Makhail’s motion to strike.
Defendant Makhail SHALL file and serve an Answer to the TAC within 10 days. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1320(g).)
Plaintiffs to give notice.
2. Powerstone Property and Mourer
The court SUSTAINS Defendants POWERSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT and SCOTT MOURER’s (collectively, “Defendants”) demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Plaintiffs DOUGLAS WONG and JENNIFER
JING, without leave to amend. Defendants demur generally and on the ground of uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e), (f).)
This court previously sustained Defendants’ general demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on the basis that the SAC failed to allege facts showing wrongdoing by either Mourer or Powerstone. (ROA 369, p. 4.)
The court finds that the TAC also fails to allege facts showing wrongdoing by either Mourer or Powerstone. The TAC merely adds the following allegations: On 10/17/22, Makhail circulated an email to Mourer, and Mourer told Plaintiffs that since Makhail hired Mourer, Mourer would do what Makhail wanted him to do. (TAC, ¶ 29.)
The TAC’s allegations against Mourer and Powerstone remain deficient. For example, nowhere in the TAC do Plaintiffs allege that either Powerstone or Mourer wrongfully published private information about either plaintiff. Nor does the TAC allege facts showing that either Powerstone or Mourer made the decision to hang the Jing Poster in the guardhouse. Rather, the TAC alleges that Mourer was an employee of Powerstone and that Powerstone was a property management company for the Pacific Ridge Homeowners Association. (TAC, ¶¶ 5-7, 21.)
As Plaintiffs have now had numerous opportunities to amend, the court SUSTAINS without leave to amend.
Moving Defendants to give notice.
Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel
The motions are DENIED as MOOT. On 4/20/26, attorney JAMES W. DENISON filed motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs (1) DOUGLAS WONG and (2) JENNFIER JING. (ROA 407.) Shortly thereafter, Substitutions of Counsel forms (MC-050) were filed on 4/23/26, whereby attorney Denison was substituted out as Plaintiffs’ counsel. (ROA 417, 418.)
Case Management Conference remains set for 8/3/26.
36