In litigation, timing and procedural choices can be just as critical as the merits of a claim. The California Court of Appeal’s decision in Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Assn. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 530 offers a compelling reminder of this principle.
The case centers on a dispute between condominium owners and their homeowner’s association (HOA) over an alleged nuisance caused by improperly installed flooring. While the plaintiffs, Gregory and Kathleen Haidet, raised multiple claims against the Del Mar Woods HOA, the appellate court’s ruling turned not on the substance of those claims, but on the procedural consequences of failing to name the defendants in their amended complaint after a sustained demurrer.
This article explores the court’s interpretation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), which authorizes dismissal with prejudice when there is a failure to amend after a demurrer by the plaintiff within the time allowed.
We examine how the Haidets’ decision to omit the HOA from their amended complaint forfeited their right to voluntarily dismiss the HOA without prejudice, and how this ruling reinforces the importance of strategic clarity in post-demurrer litigation.
Haidet Overview: What Caused the Plaintiffs to Inadvertently Forfeit Their Right to Voluntarily Dismiss the HOA Without Prejudice?
The Haidets filed suit in 2022, alleging that their upstairs neighbors’ hardwood flooring installation violated the HOA’s governing documents and created a persistent nuisance. Their complaint included claims against the HOA for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief.
The HOA responded with a demurrer, which the trial court sustained as to all claims made against the HOA. The breach of fiduciary duty claim was dismissed without leave to amend, while the other two claims were dismissed with leave to amend. The Haidets chose not to amend their claims against the HOA and instead filed a first amended complaint (FAC) that named only other defendants.
Shortly thereafter, the Haidets attempted to voluntarily dismiss the HOA without prejudice — which would allow them to assert claims against the HOA at a later time. However, the HOA moved for dismissal with prejudice under CCP 581(f)(2), which would preclude the plaintiffs from refiling their claims against the HOA.
Ultimately, the trial court granted the motion, concluding that by omitting the HOA from the amended complaint, the Haidets acquiesced to the sustaining of the demurrer and forfeited their right to voluntarily dismiss the HOA from the lawsuit without prejudice.
What Does CCP 581 Say About Voluntary vs. Involuntary Dismissal?
At the heart of the appellate decision is the interpretation of CCP 581(f)(2), which provides:
“The court may dismiss the complaint as to that defendant when… after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party moves for dismissal.”
The statute gives courts discretion to dismiss with or without prejudice when a plaintiff fails to amend after a sustained demurrer.
Importantly, the appellate court clarified that once a plaintiff files an amended complaint omitting a defendant, the right to voluntarily dismiss that defendant without prejudice is forfeited.
Why Did the Court Deny the Haidets’ Request for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice?
The appellate court rejected the Haidets’ first argument that their amended complaint implicitly operated as a dismissal without prejudice and that the trial court thereafter lost jurisdiction to dismiss with prejudice. Instead, it emphasized that, although a filing of a dismissal operates “in substance” as a dismissal, it must be perfected through a formal order or judgment of dismissal.
The appellate court also declined to extend the reasoning of Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) — which involved fictitious “Doe” defendants and did not involve an amended complaint filed after a demurrer — to real parties like the HOA.
Lastly, the appellate court rejected the Haidets’ second argument that their request for dismissal without prejudice should have been granted as a matter of right because it was filed before their time to amend had expired. Instead, the appellate court found that the filing of an amended complaint omitting a defendant after a sustained demurrer triggers the court’s discretionary authority under CCP 581(f)(2).
It emphasized that after filing their amended complaint, the Haidets’ right to further amend their complaint was a matter “of grace, not right.” As such, the Haidets’ failure to amend their causes of action against the HOA constituted a procedural dereliction that made involuntary dismissal with prejudice inevitable.
How Could the Haidets Have Voluntarily Dismissed the HOA Without Prejudice?
Notably, the appellate court made clear that the Haidets had two options available to them to voluntarily dismiss the HOA without prejudice.
First, after a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, a plaintiff can dismiss a defendant as a matter of right by filing a request for dismissal without prejudice before filing an amended complaint as to the other defendants.
Second, a plaintiff can exercise this right by filing an amended complaint continuing to assert claims against that defendant and then filing a request for dismissal without prejudice.
Unfortunately for the Haidets, they failed to exercise either option, instead electing to amend their complaint without naming the HOA as defendants and then, several days later, seeking to dismiss without prejudice.
Was Involuntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Warranted or Was It an Abuse of Discretion?
The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion and found none. It noted that:
- The Haidets deprived the HOA of the opportunity to challenge the FAC.
- The HOA would otherwise remain in “perpetual limbo.”
- The Haidets conceded they could achieve their litigation goals without including the HOA.
These factors supported the trial court’s conclusion that involuntary dismissal with prejudice was warranted.
Key Takeaways: Procedural Choices Are Just as Important as Substantive Choices in California Litigation
The Haidet decision serves as a cautionary tale for California-based litigators navigating post-demurrer strategy. It underscores several key procedural principles:
- Strategic omissions carry consequences. Plaintiffs who omit a defendant from an amended complaint after a sustained demurrer cannot later seek voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
- Timing matters. The right to voluntary dismissal without prejudice must be exercised before filing an amended complaint or before the time to amend expires.
- Code of Civil Procedure section 581(f)(2) is not merely permissive — it can be decisive. Courts may dismiss with prejudice even if plaintiffs argue they could have stated valid claims.
Need assistance with post-demurrer strategy in a probate case?
If a demurrer has been sustained in a probate lawsuit, the steps you take next can have significant consequences for your case. Our experienced probate attorneys are skilled in post-demurrer strategy, motion practice and procedural compliance, helping ensure all requirements are met while maximizing your chances of achieving a favorable outcome.
Contact us today to discuss how we can assist with your post-demurrer strategy.
