The Court finds Defendant Minako has filed a code-compliant meet and confer declaration. (b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].)Īny party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403 see also Shields v. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” ( Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” ( SKF Farms v. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.
430.41, 435.5.)Ī demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Cross-Defendant Minako also argues there are insufficient facts to allege causes of action for equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.Ĭross-Defendant Minako also asks the Court to grant its motion to strike Cross-Complainant Crown’s request for attorney’s fees because Cross-Complainant Crown has not stated a statutory or contractual basis for an award of attorney’s fees.īefore filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the demurring and moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or stricken, in person or telephonically, for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer and motion to strike. Cross-Defendant Minako argues the declaratory relief cause of action is not ripe for review.
#Minako america corporation dba minco construction code
On September 4, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Minako America Corporation filed a demurrer pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 and a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435.ĭefendant/Cross-Complainant Minako America Corporation (“Cross-Defendant Minako”) asks the Court to sustain its demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Crown Castle Fiber LLC’s (“Cross-Complainant Crown”) cross-complaint. alleging breach of contract and seeking express indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On June 29, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Crown Castle Fiber LLC filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Minako America Corporation and Cross-Defendant Line Works Construction, Inc. On Plaintiff filed an amendment to her complaint to rename Doe 1 as Defendant Crown Castle Fiber LLC. Plaintiff alleges negligence for falling over a metal sign that was left lying flat on a sidewalk on January 10, 2020. Krim (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Minako America Corporation dba Minco Construction. Having considered the demurring, moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. Case Number: *******7700 Hearing Date: DecemDept: 28
0 kommentar(er)
