Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mublam

Separate motion to hear CRC violation matter

3 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0