Leahy v. Adams CA3

Filed 9/23/25 Leahy v. Adams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

LINDA G. LEAHY, C101715

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SCV0050908)

v.

THERESE ADAMS,

Defendant and Respondent.

Self-represented plaintiff Linda G. Leahy appeals after the trial court sustained a demurrer to her complaint without leave to amend. She contends there were several errors in the trial court proceedings. Because she fails to meet her burden of demonstrating error, we affirm. Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant Therese Adams and others, alleging various causes of action related to a family trust.

1

Plaintiff made two motions for trial preference. The court denied both: the first because plaintiff failed to submit any admissible evidence in support; and the second because the evidence was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard of section 36, subdivision (d). The motions and their supporting evidence are not in the record. Meanwhile, defendant demurred to plaintiff’s complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, serving it and the summons on defendant in California on January 24, 2024, using United States mail from Oregon. On February 28, 2024, defendant filed a declaration (the February 28 declaration) stating (1) her intent to file a demurrer to the amended complaint and (2) the need for additional time to complete the meet and confer process. According to the February 28 declaration, defendant sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff two days prior, and the parties required additional time to complete the meet and confer process. The caption on the declaration identifies a related probate case (the probate case). On March 4, 2024, defendant filed the same declaration, this time identifying this case (the March 4 declaration). Also on March 4, 2024, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. On March 5, 2024, defendant filed an application for nunc pro tunc filing of a declaration in support of an automatic extension and two supporting declarations. According to one supporting declaration: (1) defendant’s attorney sent a letter to plaintiff on February 26, 2024 via express mail to attempt to meet and confer regarding “deficits” in the amended complaint; (2) plaintiff responded and offered a telephone call; (3) defendant’s attorney was “unavailable to further meet and confer with [p]laintiff prior to the deadline to respond”; (4) on March 2, 2024, defendant’s attorney learned that the February 28 declaration was filed in the probate case; and (5) on March 4, 2024,