Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 22STCV04785, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV04785, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04785 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Amended Demurrer of Defendant, The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, In Furtherance of The Alameda Corridor-East Construction Project, To First Amended Complaint.

BACKGROUND

In this case, Plaintiff EL ADOBE APTS., INC. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (“Defendant”) failed to convey three parcels of land to Plaintiff in violation of a written settlement agreement between the parties. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on 8/28/2023, alleges claims against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract/Specific Performance of Contract; (2) Quiet Title; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Declaratory Relief; (5) Nuisance; and (6) Negligent Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage.

Defendant brings this demurrer to all the claims in the FAC. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD

Demurrers are to be sustained where a pleading fails to plead adequately any essential element of the cause of action. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879-80. A court will consider judicially noticed matters when determining the sufficiency of a complaint. Poseidon Dev., Inc. v. Woodland Lane Ests., LLC (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1106, 1117.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant seeks judicial notice of (1) the judgment in the underlying condemnation lawsuit (which was also attached to the FAC), (2) the recorded Grant Deed No. 20230488803 pertaining to Parcel No. 208S; (3) the recorded Grant Deed No. 20230488804 pertaining to Parcel No. 208R; and (4) the recorded Grant Deed no. 20230488805 pertaining to Parcel No. 208U. The Court takes judicial notice of these four documents.

ANALYSIS

Judicially Noticed Facts Negate Allegations in FAC

Plaintiff’s first, second, third, and fourth claims are premised on the allegation that Defendant failed to convey Parcels 208-R, S, and U pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. (SAC, ¶¶ 13, 15, 20, 27, 29, 37, 46.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable for breach of contract, quiet title, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory judgment because it failed to convey the parcels to Plaintiff. (See id.)

The judicially noticed grant deeds reflect that Defendant conveyed Parcels 208-R, S, and U to Plaintiff in June 2023, before Plaintiff filed the FAC. Defendant correctly argues that the grant deeds negate Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant failed to convey Parcels 208-R, S, and U. Plaintiff argues that the Court can only consider its allegations in considering the demurrer, but this ignores the well-settled law that the Court can consider judicially noticed maters when considering the legal sufficiency of a complaint. And Plaintiff’s allegations are not accepted as true for purposes of a demurrer when judicially noticed facts disclose an absolute defense. Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 23, 38-39; Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1462, 1474. Here, the judicially noticed facts are that Defendant conveyed the parcels to Plaintiff, which means that Plaintiff’s claims alleging the exact opposite fail as a matter of law. The Court will grant leave to amend because Plaintiff may be able to articulate a theory of recovery against Defendant despite the conveyance of these parcels in June 2023.

Non-Compliance with the California Claims Act

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s first, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action fail as a matter of law because these claims seek monetary damages, but Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the claim requirements set forth in the California Claims Act, Gov. Code Section 900 et seq. Subject to certain exceptions set forth in Government Code Section 905 (none of which apply here), a plaintiff suing a public entity for money or damages must first present a timely written claim for damages to the entity. Gov’t Code § 945.4; Johnson v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 692, 696. Failing to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim requirements in the California Claims Act subjects a complaint to demurrer. State v. Sup. Ct. (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1245.

Here, the four claims seek money damages against Defendant, a public entity. Plaintiff does not, however, plead compliance with the claims requirement in the California Claims Act. Plaintiff does not even address this argument in its opposition, let alone contest its failure to comply with the claims requirement. A party’s complete silence in an opposition to an issue raised in a motion results in a waiver the right to argue the matter in trial court and on appeal. Assad v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1615. The Court therefore sustains the demurrer on this ground. Because Plaintiff may have complied with the claims requirement but just failed to allege such compliance, the demurrer to these claims is sustained with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.