Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STLC07798, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC07798    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: 52

Defendant Armen Khosrovyan’s Motion to Quash Complaint and Demurrer

Defendant Armen Khosrovyan filed a motion to quash plaintiff Cindy Pain’s complaint and a demurrer to the complaint. 

Motion to Quash Complaint

Defendant provides no authority for moving to “quash” a complaint.  The Code of Civil Procedure provides for moving “[t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over” the defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1).)  Defendant’s motion to quash the complaint does not argue or establish that the court lacks jurisdiction over him for any reason.  Instead, it argues over the merits of plaintiff’s complaint.  That is not a valid basis to quash service of summons.

Demurrer

            A demurrer is an objection to a complaint on one of several specified reasons.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)  Each basis requires defendant to show that, even if all the complaint’s factual allegations are true, the complaint is defective.  (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125 [courts “assume that the complaint’s properly pleaded material allegations are true”].)  The complaint must be “liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

            Defendant’s demurrer does not show any defect in plaintiff’s complaint.  Instead, defendant argues about the merits of the case based on plaintiff’s lack of evidence (Demurrer, p. 3) or “proof” (Demurrer, p. 5) and insists plaintiff has no right to cross his land without his permission.

            Assuming plaintiff’s factual allegations are true—as courts must do on demurrer—the complaint states a valid cause of action for interference with easement.  “The owner of any estate in a dominant tenement… may maintain an action for the enforcement of an easement attached thereto.”  (Civ. Code, § 809.)  “ ‘The rights and duties between the owner of an easement and the owner of the servient tenement ... are correlative.  Each is required to respect the rights of the other.  Neither party can conduct activities or place obstructions on the property that unreasonably interfere with the other party’s use of the property.’ ”  (Dolnikov v. Ekizian (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 419, 428–429.)

            Plaintiff alleges she is entitled to use an easement over defendant’s property.  The complaint alleges plaintiff owns property at 2388 Stonyvale Road in Tujunga, California, while defendant owns nearby property at 2320 Stonyvale Road.  (Comp., pp. 1-2.)  She alleges her property “is afforded the right to cross Defendant’s property pursuant to the easement deed recorded on September 10, 1965, which runs with both parcels.”  (Comp., p. 2.)  The recorded easement is “An easement for ingress and egress over a portion of [specified land] as described in the deed recorded on September 10, 1965.”  (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff alleges defendant has interfered with her use of the easement.  Beginning in 2019, “Plaintiff and her mother were met with hostile opposition from the Defendant upon trying to access the easement.”  (Comp., p. 2.)  “Defendant refused to let Plaintiff walk across [the] easement to her property and placed three padlocks on the gate placed over access to said easement.”  (Ibid.) 

Blocking the path is the quintessential way to interfere with an easement for ingress and egress.  Assuming plaintiff’s allegations are true, she is entitled to cross defendant’s land to access her own.  Refusing to allow her to pass interferes with her easement and violates her property rights. 

Defendant’s chief argument is that the easement is too old to be enforced.  He argues plaintiff has no “Current Easement Agreement” and instead relies on “an outdated Easement Agreement.”  (Demurrer, p. 6.)  He argues the easement was granted in 1965 “to Jack Emreck and Sue Ann Emreck from Harold Rosen” and “does not mention the current property owner,” plaintiff.  (Demurrer, p. 4.) 

The easement is not outdated.  It makes no difference that the recorded document does not mention plaintiff by name.  Plaintiff alleges the easement “runs with both parcels.” (Comp., p. 2.)  When an easement runs with the land (known as an “appurtenant easement”), transferring ownership of the land also transfers ownership of the easements.  (Civ. Code, § 1104.)  Such an easement continues to apply to the land’s future owners. 

Disposition

            Defendant Armen Khosrovyan’s motion to quash plaintiff’s complaint is denied.  Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.  Defendant is ordered to answer within 15 days.

            Moving party to give notice.