Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03762, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03762    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

FRANCISCO NARANJO-ZENDEJAS, Trustee of the Naranjo's Trust dated 16 October 5, 2023, and FRANCISCO NARANJO ZENDEJAS (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Strike the Complaint is DENIED.

Background

This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff LORENZO GAMEZ FORTANELI alleges the following against Defendants: Plaintiff is 74 years old. The subject property is located at 1515 Doverfield Avenue in Hacienda Heights which was vested in the name of Plaintiff’s now deceased spouse, Ms. Gamez. As a result of a 50% spousal property petition and purchasing the remaining 50% from Ms. Gamez’s estate, Plaintiff holds 100% interest in the subject property. Defendant Zendejas was a close friend of Plaintiff whom Plaintiff relied on to assist with numerous tasks. Eventually, Zendejas and his family moved into the property and relocated Plaintiff. In April 2023, Plaintiff learned that in May 2022, Defendant fraudulently transferred ownership of the property to himself via a quitclaim deed.

On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint asserting the following six (6) causes of action:

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a NOTICE OF RECORDING PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS).

On February 16, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike (MTS).

On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed his opposition.

To date, as of Thurs. 4/11, no reply has been received (due 5 court days before hearing (Tues., 4/9).

Discussion

Defendants seek to strike the entire complaint because it is not properly verified. Specifically, Defendants argue that “The complaint states that the Plaintiff cannot read, write or speak in the English language and that Plaintiff is fluent in Spanish. As a result, it is not possible for the Plaintiff to have properly verified the complaint based on the language contained in the verification without having reviewed a Spanish translation of the complaint and without the verification of the complaint stating that it reviewed a Spanish translation of the complaint.” (Motion p. 2.)

The motion fails for a few reasons.  

First, Defendants misreads the complaint, or, in the alternative, narrowly construes the complaint. Pleadings are to be liberally construed. (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal. App. 2d 143, 146.) Here, the complaint does not state that Plaintiff cannot read, write or speak English. Instead, the complaint states that Plaintiff “does not read or write English proficiently” (Complaint p. 6, italics added) and that Plaintiff does not “read or understand much English.” (Complaint p. 5, italics added.) But a proficient language skill merely means that someone is not fluent in a language; it does not equate to a total inability to speak, read, or write in a certain language. Thus, as Plaintiff does not contend that he is wholly unable to read English, that argument fails.

Second, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff cannot read or understand English, Defendants have not provided authority that Plaintiff is required to have reviewed a Spanish translation of the Complaint that was translated by a certified translator under California Evidence Code § 751(c). (Motion p. 6, see also Opp. p. 5.)

Third, even assuming authority was provided to support the foregoing, a mere technical defect in the verification does not render the verification insufficient. (Opp. p. 4, citing Sheeley v. City of Santa Clara (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 83, 86 [where plaintiff read the complaint, raised her hand, swore it was true, and signed a notarization and acknowledgement rather than a verification, the complaint was sufficiently verified].) After all, “[a] verification is an affidavit of the truth of the matter stated… Its object is to assure good faith in the averments or statements of a party. The chief test of the sufficiency of a verification is whether it is so clear and certain that an indictment for perjury may be sustained on it as false.” (Id. at p. 85.) Here, Plaintiff was able to review the complaint as to be familiar with its contents, with the translation and assistance of Plaintiff’s counsel’s staff and Plaintiff’s niece and sign the above verification under the penalty of perjury. (Opp. p. 5.) Thus, as the complaint makes it clear that Plaintiff in the truth of those matters asserted in the complaint, matters which he understands, there has been substantial compliance with statutory requirement of verification.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, as the complaint was translated to Spanish and no authority has been provided that would require said translation be required to be made by a certified translator, there has not only bee substantial compliance with the statutory requirement of verification but fully complies with it, the motion is DENIED.