2018-00225208-CU-PO

Vineeta Devi vs. Surendra Singh

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint

Filed By: James, Charnel

Defendant Kumar’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint is DROPPED from calendar, as follows.

The notice of demurrer does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06.

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rules 2.111(3) and 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

First, although defendant filed a proof of personal service of the demurrer on plaintiff, the proof of service does not indicate the date on which personal service was completed and if service were completed on 6/8/2018 (the date on which the proof was signed and the demurrer was filed), defendant would have failed to provide the required minimum 16 court days’ notice for the hearing on this demurrer. Such defective service of notice would deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider this matter. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-511.)

Second, it appears this demurrer is challenging the allegations of the original complaint filed by plaintiff on 1/12/2018 but plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on 4/30/2018, long before defendant filed his demurrer on 6/8/2018. Thus, the present demurrer is moot to the extent it challenges the original complaint which has been superseded by the first amended complaint despite the fact it appears plaintiff has not served the first amended complaint on any of the defendants.

For these reasons, the present demurrer is dropped.

The clerk is directed to mail a copy of this minute order to all parties who have to date made an appearance in this action.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)