Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV14767, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14767    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: 55

Tentative for Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Lack of Right to Recover Damages

Proceeding: Hearing Re: Plaintiffs’ Lack of Right to Recover Damages

Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Yessica Espinosa, Emmanuel Espinosa, and Nora Susana Arellano (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nora Moran Arellano (“Defendant”). Nora Susana Arellano is Defendant’s daughter. Yessica Espinosa is Defendant’s granddaughter and Emmanuel Espinosa is Yessica’s husband. The Complaint alleged eight claims: (1) Partition of Real Property (642 N. Virgil Avenue, the “Property”); (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Declaratory Relief; (5) Promissory Estoppel; (6) Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and (8) Quiet Title. Defendant’s Cross-Complaint alleged five claims: (1) Fraud; (2) Financial Elder Abuse; (3) Cancellation of Instrument; (4) Quiet Title; and (5) Declaratory Relief.

The parties held a bench trial with the former judge in Department 55 in 2023. The court signed a Statement of Decision (“SOD”) and Judgment on 6/14/23. In the SOD and the Judgment, the court concluded that Defendant was the prevailing party on all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the Complaint and all of Defendant’s claims in her Cross-Complaint. Yet, the court awarded Plaintiffs $131, 653 for “repairs and payments.” While the court awarded Defendant the Property, it did not award Defendant any money damages.

On 12/4/24, the supervising judge of the Civil Division granted Defendant’s ex parte application for clarification of the order denying a motion for new trial and vacating the SOD and judgment. The supervising judge (1) vacated the portions of the SOD and judgment awarding Plaintiffs money for repairs and payments and disallowing Defendant any money damages, and (2) reopened the case for further proceedings limited to the vacated portions of the SOD and Judgment.

This court has held several status conferences with the parties since December 2024. The court set a briefing schedule in May 2024, but the parties could not complete the joint brief because Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to timely communicate with Defendant’s counsel regarding the joint brief. On 5/31/24, the court set a new schedule. First, a hearing on whether Plaintiffs have a right to recover damages at all in the case, set for 8/5/24. Second, a hearing on Defendant’s damages, set for 10/17/24.

Defendant filed her brief explaining why Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages. Plaintiffs have not filed any brief in opposition to Defendant’s brief. It is indisputable that Plaintiffs lost this case. They lost all their claims in the Complaint and all of Defendant’s cross-claims. The court found they had not established any of their claims and thus they cannot, as a matter of law, recover any damages for claims they did not prevail on. The vacated portion of the SOD and Judgment referring to “repairs and payments” does not salvage Plaintiffs’ claim for money because they did not allege a claim for such payments. To the extent that Plaintiffs have any argument for why the court should consider awarding them money in this case, they have failed to file any brief articulating such an argument and, in any event, the court agrees with Defendant that no such argument exists. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that no basis exists to award Plaintiffs damages in this case.