On February 26, the Honorable Donald Alvarez issued his ruling on Redlands’ and LAFCO’s demurrers (attempts to have COMET’s second amended Complaint thrown out). “The demurrers were identical,” COMET’s counsel stated, but his rulings were slightly different. ” Judge Alvarez’s “disposition,” or final summary as to the City held:
Sustain with leave to amend City’s demurer to the 1st (civil extortion) and 3rd (rescission/restitution) causes of action. “That means that we can add information to the Complaint in the form of a Third Amended Complaint,” said Joyce Rapp, COMET’s counsel for the lawsuit against Redlands. “These are some of the most important parts of the lawsuit,” she added.
Sustain without leave to amend City’s demurrer to the 4th (equitable estoppel), 6th (UC.L), 7th (injunctive relief), and 8th (reverse validation) causes of action. “We can’t amend these; they are thrown out,”she continued. “Some of these are duplicative of the ones he left in,” and were not as important as the ones he left in,” she added.
Overrule City’s demurrer to the 2nd (declaratory relief) and 5th (fraud) causes of action. “That means they stay in the lawsuit but don’t have to be rewritten, as the first and third causes of action do,” she added.
Grant City’s request for judicial notice in its entirety. That simply means that the judge looked at the documents the City filed.
Sustain City’s objection to COMET’s sur-reply. “That simply means that he wouldn’t consider the last document we filed. Judges usually do, and in this case Redlands added something after our opposition that we should have had an opportunity to refute, but didn’t,” Rapp continued.
Judge Alvarez’s decision was slightly different as to LAFCO:
Sustain with leave to amend LAFCO’s demurrer to the 1st (civil extortion) and 5th (fraud) causes of action.
Sustain without leave to amend LAFCO’s demurrer to the 3rd (rescission/restitution), 4th (equitable estoppel), 6th (UCL), 7th (injunctive relief) and 8th (reverse validation) causes of action.
Overrule LAFCO’s demurrer to the 2nd (declaratory relief) cause of action.
Sustain LAFCO’s objection to COMET’s sur-reply.
The only difference is that LAFCO does not need possibly to rescind annexation “agreements,” and restore the property Redlands took, Our next step is to rewrite the Second Amended Complaint and file it as the Third Amended Complaint, based on his findings in the decision, We’re still in the running!” she exclaimed.
COMET’s counsel received the ruling on March 11; it was sent out by the Court on March 8. “Ordinarily counsel has 30 days in which to prepare and file the next pleading,” she concluded.
Way to go Joyce & Mentone we will right the wrongs of the past and make history… Judge Alvarez knows best!
Uh, well, I disagree with him on some points, some more important than others. But I’m confident that the court of appeals will straighten that out, when the time comes.