Jump to content


Photo

Separate motion to hear CRC violation matter


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 mublam

mublam

    New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

I am a pro per in a civil matter in California. I filed a motion to Strike their Demurrer, in part due to CRC violations. They are suggesting 435(a)(3) prevents this separate motion, even though I list other items I'm trying to strike in addition to their demurrer. I thinking I can argue judicial efficiencies, but are there any other legal arguments I can use?

#2 pg1067

pg1067

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,334 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

I filed a motion to Strike their Demurrer, in part due to CRC violations.


What California Rules of Court did the demurrer violate? On what other basis are you seeking to strike the demurrer?


They are suggesting 435(a)(3) prevents this separate motion, even though I list other items I'm trying to strike in addition to their demurrer.


Who are "they"? What else could you possibly be seeking to strike? What does the reference to "435(a)(3)" mean? I would have assumed you were talking about Section 435 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but there is no Section 435(a)(3). There is a Section 435(b)(3), but it expressly contemplates a motion to strike a demurrer (although, in nearly 25 years, I have never heard of anyone moving to strike a demurrer since, typically, any objection can be raised and dealt with in an opposition to the demurrer rather than a separate motion).


I thinking I can argue judicial efficiencies, but are there any other legal arguments I can use?


Arguments you can use for what purpose? You haven't articulated (much less clearly articulated) what the issue is or what goal you're trying to accomplish.

#3 Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*

Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:54 AM

What legal issue is this matter concerning?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users