Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV05349, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05349 Hearing Date: January 22, 2024 Dept: 40
|
Alex Lloyd Yufa, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor and “Doe Defendants” 1
through 10, Defendants. |
Case No.: 23STCV05349 Hearing Date: 1/22/24 Trial Date: N/A [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant Los
Angeles County Office of the Assessor’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint;
and Defendant Los
Angeles County Office of the Assessor’s Motion to Strike Demand for Jury
Trial. |
Plaintiff Alex Lloyd Yufa—in pro per and suing on behalf of rights held
by Yelena V. Yufa, owner of parcels 4465-007-032 and 4465-007-033 in Los
Angeles County, California—sues Defendants Los Angeles County Office of the
Assessor and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a March 10, 2023 Complaint.
Without substantive elaboration, the Complaint alleges causes of action
involving (1) Violations of Revenue and Taxation Code, (2) Improper Evaluation
of Owner’s Rights, and (3) Emotional Distress. The Complaint prays for findings
in Plaintiff’s favor as well as treble damages on the stated claims.
On November 1, 2023, the Assessor’s Office demurred to the Complaint’s
three claims on nine distinct grounds.
That same day, the Assessor’s Office filed a motion to strike the demand
for jury trial from the Complaint on the ground that there is no right to a
jury trial in a tax dispute.
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff opposed the motion to strike but not the
demurrer—despite both the demurrer and motion to strike being served on
Plaintiff by mail and electronic service on November 1, 2023, with the documents
mailed to the address listed in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
On December 18, 2023, the Court held a case management conference and an
order to show cause hearing regarding failure to file proof of service, at
which the Court noted a demurrer was on calendar for January 22, 2024.
Plaintiff Yufa attended this hearing.
On January 1, 2024, the Assessor’s Office replied to the November 13th
opposition.
The Assessor’s Office demurrer and motion to strike are now before the
Court.
Per the Assessor’s Office’s
request, the Court takes judicial of (1) a printout of a search of the State
Bar records for “Alex Lloyd Yufa,” (2) a printout of Los Angeles County Code
section 4.04.010, (3) the November 2, 2022 ruling on a demurrer to a complaint filed
by Alex Lloyd Yufa in LASC Action No. 22STCV27483 (the Underlying Action), and (4) the January 1,
2023 order dismissing complaint in the Underlying Action. (Demurrer,
RJN, Exs. 1-4; see Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (d), (h), 453, subds. (a)-(b).)
Legal
Standard
A
demurrer will lie in an instance in which the plaintiff lacks standing. (PacLink
Communications Internat., Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 958,
964 (PacLink) [demurrer challenged limited liability company members’ standing
where wrong was one suffered by company itself]; City of Brentwood v.
Campbell (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 488, 504 (Campbell) [“Every action
must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest,” i.e., “the
person who possesses the right to sue under the substantive law involved;”
“anyone other than a real party in interest lacks standing and is subject to a
[general] demurrer for the failure to state a cause of action.”].) The issue of
standing to sue is a threshold legal issue to be decided by the court. (Bozung
v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 287, fn. 32; Jauregi
v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 931, 939.)
FAC,
Entire Complaint: SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
Here,
the Complaint states on its face that Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of
rights held by another person as a “representative.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 6(4).)
In
its demurrer, the Assessor’s Office argues that the Business and Professions
Code does not permit a person who is not an active member of the State Bar to
practice law in the State of California and that Plaintiff, as shown by State
Bar records, is not a licensed attorney in the State of California, for which
reason Plaintiff may not represent another person—here, Yelena V. Yufa—in enforcing the latter person’s rights. (Demurrer, p. 4,
citing Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125.)
The Assessor’s Office adds that Plaintiff
Yufa lacks standing to sue on behalf of Yelena V. Yufa’s in relation to Yelena
V. Yufa’s property rights, citing the Rutter Guide in support. (Demurrer, p.
4.)
The demurrer is unopposed.
The Court agrees with the Assessor’s Office.
The Court has taken notice of a printout of a
State Bar of California attorney search result for the name “Alex Lloyd Yufa,”
which failed to yield an attorney licensed in the State of California by that
name. (Demurrer, RJN, Ex. 1.) There is no opposition to dispute whether
Plaintiff Yufa is licensed to practice law in the State of California. The
conclusion that Plaintiff Yufa is not licensed to practice law in the State of
California is bolstered by the Complaint’s language, which identifies Plaintiff
as a mere “representative” of Yelena V. Yufa. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 6(4).)
The Court thus determines that Plaintiff may not file the Complaint as Yelena V. Yufa’s legal representative. (Bus.
& Prof. Code, § 6125.)
Moreover, the face of the Complaint shows
that Plaintiff Yufa sues based on rights held by another, i.e., Yelena V. Yufa.
(Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 6(4).) Plaintiff therefore lacks standing to bring
this action. (PacLink, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 964; Campbell,
supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 504.)
The Assessor’s Office’s demurrer is thus
SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
Legal
Standard
The
court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it
deems proper: (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted
in any pleading; or (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or
filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of
the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subds. (a), (b); Stafford v. Shultz
(1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the
claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or
disregarded”].)
For
the purposes of a motion to strike pursuant to Sections 435 to 437 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, the term “pleading” generally means a demurrer, answer,
complaint, or cross-complaint, (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (a)), and an
immaterial allegation or irrelevant matter in a pleading entails (1) an
allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense, (2) an
allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise
sufficient claim or defense, or (3) a demand for judgment requesting relief not
supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint (Code Civ.
Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3), (c)).
Order
Striking Demand for Jury Trial: GRANTED.
Though the Cour has sustained the demurrer to the Complaint, it also GRANTS the Assessor’s Office’s motion to strike because this action appears to involve the collection of taxes by the Assessor’s office, for which jury trial is not available. (See Sonleitner v. Superior Court (1958) 158 CalApp.2d 258, 259-260.)
Defendant Los Angeles County Office
of the Assessor’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED, with leave to
amend.
Defendant Los Angeles County Office
of the Assessor’s Motion to Strike Demand for Jury Trial is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Alex Lloyd Yufa shall file any amended pleading within 14 days of this order.