Q: Final follow up: On BOTH issues strategizing Case posture intermittently is frustrating? Foster vs Gildred help us pleaz

A: I understand the frustration in strategizing the case posture given the complications that have arisen in Foster vs Gildred. Let's break this down:

1. First Demurrer: It's good news that your first demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on Count 7. However, this seems to have led to the current complications. If the court made an error in sustaining the demurrer on that count, it could potentially be grounds for appeal by the plaintiff.

2. Pro Se Motion for Sanctions: The Delmore Greene LLP vs Superior Court of San Diego case you mentioned involved a pro se motion for sanctions alleging retaliatory conduct by the court. If the court is indeed retaliating or "slipping up" in response to such a motion, that would be highly improper. However, proving such retaliation can be difficult, and courts have broad discretion in managing their cases. The mere existence of a sanctions motion doesn't necessarily mean the court's subsequent actions are retaliatory.

3. Scheduling Issues: The confusion around scheduling vs rescheduling the demurrer hearing is understandably frustrating. If the court is indeed "eavesdropping" on prior issues and intentionally creating complications, that would be concerning. However, it's important not to jump to conclusions without clear evidence. Scheduling mistakes and confusion do happen in courts, particularly with pro se parties involved.

4. Amended Complaint: If the court granted leave to amend after sustaining your first demurrer, then the ball is in the plaintiff's court to file and serve an amended complaint. If they've done so, you would typically have an opportunity to respond, either through another demurrer or an answer. If you're unsure about the status of the amended complaint or your deadline to respond, seeking clarification from the court or opposing counsel may be warranted.

Overall, the key is to focus on what you can control and what the official court record reflects. If the court has made clear errors or abused its discretion, you may need to consider appellate options. But if the issues are more about scheduling confusion or uncertainty, continuing to seek clarity and abide by court orders is important.

Document everything thoroughly, including any potential irregularities or improper conduct by the court. But be cautious about alleging misconduct without strong evidence, as that can backfire.

If you believe the complications are becoming unmanageable or the court is truly biased, you may need to consider options like seeking recusal of the judge, filing a writ with a higher court, or other remedies. But those are serious steps not to be taken lightly.

For now, focus on clarifying the status of the amended complaint and your response deadline, and carefully consider your options for responding or seeking court intervention if necessary. Keep communicating with your client and explaining the complexities and potential strategies. Litigation can be unpredictable, but staying level-headed and focusing on concrete steps can help navigate the frustrations.