- Jurisdiction
- California
I responded to the original unlawful detainer complaint by filing a demurrer. I served plaintiff with demurrer and discovery docs (i.e. DPDs, RFAs and ROGs). Later, that same day, I reviewed the case file and discovered that plaintiff had filed an amended complaint, which I had never received
I don't believe that plaintiff changed any material facts by filing the FAC. It is identical to the original form complaint in all respects, except for three trivial amendments.
Although the five-day response time for the FAC had expired, I filed a demurrer to the FAC, as no default judgment had been entered.
(Note: Plaintiff has failed to respond to my first set of discovery documents; the deadline for his such responses has expired. Consequently, I plan to file motions to compel and also to deem request for admissions admitted.)
In my discovery documents, I did specifically define the original complaint (i.e. COMPLAINT) by stating its filing date). Each item of my discovery demands and requests which referenced an allegation in COMPLAINT concerned allegations which are the same in both form complaints.
---
In the original form complaint, Plaintiff had checked boxes to indicate the following: (1) I agreed to pay rent monthly; (2) I agreed to pay rent of the first of the month; (3) I made the written [rental] agreement with plaintiff; and (4) plaintiff did not attach written rent agreement to the complaint because the action was solely for nonpayment of rent.
Plaintiff amended complaint by: (1) checking the box which indicated that I had "agreed to rent the premises as a month-to-month tenancy"; (2) unchecking box indicating I had "agreed to pay rent monthly;" and (3) as in original complaint, plaintiff checked box indicating that I had made the [rental] agreement with plaintiff, but he did not check either box to indicate whether the agreement was oral or written.
When I reviewed the case file, I also discovered that the plaintiff had made several unsuccessful requests to set case for trial and also requests for entry of default judgment. Court clerk denied each such request. The reason for such denials was that I still had a demurrer hearing on calendar, i.e. relating to original complaint.
Questions:
1. Ought I to serve a second set of such discovery documents wherein I changed the definition of the term COMPLAINT to reflect the date of filing of the FAC?
2. Do I need to clarify that the term COMPLAINT which I utilize in discovery docs shall mean the new operative complaint: i.e. seek a meet and confer stipulation?
3. To the extent the allegations in both form UD complaints are exactly the same, are the individual discovery demands and requests that reference those allegations still valid?
I don't believe that plaintiff changed any material facts by filing the FAC. It is identical to the original form complaint in all respects, except for three trivial amendments.
Although the five-day response time for the FAC had expired, I filed a demurrer to the FAC, as no default judgment had been entered.
(Note: Plaintiff has failed to respond to my first set of discovery documents; the deadline for his such responses has expired. Consequently, I plan to file motions to compel and also to deem request for admissions admitted.)
In my discovery documents, I did specifically define the original complaint (i.e. COMPLAINT) by stating its filing date). Each item of my discovery demands and requests which referenced an allegation in COMPLAINT concerned allegations which are the same in both form complaints.
---
In the original form complaint, Plaintiff had checked boxes to indicate the following: (1) I agreed to pay rent monthly; (2) I agreed to pay rent of the first of the month; (3) I made the written [rental] agreement with plaintiff; and (4) plaintiff did not attach written rent agreement to the complaint because the action was solely for nonpayment of rent.
Plaintiff amended complaint by: (1) checking the box which indicated that I had "agreed to rent the premises as a month-to-month tenancy"; (2) unchecking box indicating I had "agreed to pay rent monthly;" and (3) as in original complaint, plaintiff checked box indicating that I had made the [rental] agreement with plaintiff, but he did not check either box to indicate whether the agreement was oral or written.
When I reviewed the case file, I also discovered that the plaintiff had made several unsuccessful requests to set case for trial and also requests for entry of default judgment. Court clerk denied each such request. The reason for such denials was that I still had a demurrer hearing on calendar, i.e. relating to original complaint.
Questions:
1. Ought I to serve a second set of such discovery documents wherein I changed the definition of the term COMPLAINT to reflect the date of filing of the FAC?
2. Do I need to clarify that the term COMPLAINT which I utilize in discovery docs shall mean the new operative complaint: i.e. seek a meet and confer stipulation?
3. To the extent the allegations in both form UD complaints are exactly the same, are the individual discovery demands and requests that reference those allegations still valid?
Last edited:
