Judge David A. Rosen, Case 22GDCV00275 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00275, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00275 Hearing Date: September 16, 2022 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 9-16-2022-1:30pm
Case No. 22GDCV00275
Trial Date: Unset
Case Name: LA CRESCENTA CHAPTER OF THE ARMENIAN CULTURAL FOUNDATION, an unincorporated association v. ARMENIAN CULTURAL FOUNDATION, a California public benefit nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1-5

TENTATIVE RULING ON DEMURRER

Moving Party: Defendant, Armenian Cultural Foundation

Responding Party: Plaintiff, La Crescenta Chapter of the Armenian Cultural Foundation

Per the 8-11-2022 Minute Order:

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300):
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)):
Proper Address:

Oppo submitted but no Reply submitted

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant demurrers to all causes of action in the Verified First Amended Complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

MEET AND CONFER

A party filing a demurrer “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., §430.41, subd. (a).) “The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” (Code Civ. Proc., §430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Failure to sufficiently meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Id., §430.41(a)(4).)

Moving party did not include a meet and confer declaration. Opposition did not point out that moving party failed to include a meet and confer declaration.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Verified First Amended Complaint on 08/18/2022 alleged four causes of action – (1) Quiet Title – Adverse Possession, (2) Establishment and Breach of Constructive and/or Resulting Trust, (3) Quiet Title – Constructive/Resulting Trust, and (4) Declaratory Relief. Defendant filed a demurrer on 8/26/2022 as to all causes of action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. However, the FAC alleges facts sufficient to plead the elements of each cause of action stated therein. Demurring Defendant does not actually argue otherwise.
DEMURRER LEGAL STANDARD
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda, (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading … is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.)

On demurrer, a trial court has an independent duty to “determine whether or not the … complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (Das v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 727, 734.) Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) “Generally, it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)

TENTATIVE RULING
The instant demurrer does not test the pleadings. Instead of attacking the FAC and attempting to argue that Plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or that even if the facts alleged in the FAC are assumed true, as they are to be on Demurrer, the FAC fails to state a cause(s) of action, the demurring party attempts solely to attack the merits of the case based on alleged evidence not before this Court. This demurrer bases its arguments upon the alleged bylaws and documents from other cases. In its discretion under CA Evidence code sec. 452, this Court does not, on Demurrer here, judicially notice the bylaws, nor any of the other documents or factual assertions Defendant raises.

The cases cited by Defendant relating to the consideration of judicially noticed documents at the Demurrer stage, Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, and Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004-2d Dist.) 116 Cal. App.4^th 968, are distinguishable from the case at bar in that the documents of which the trial courts in those cases took judicial notice were, for the most part, mandatorily noticed, or apparently definitive on their own terms. CA Evid. Code sec. 451, 452(g), (h). The documents which Defendant asks this Court to judicially notice are not subject to mandatory notice and are generally allegation documents or documents otherwise subject to interpretation as to their foundation, meaning, application, and trustworthiness. Defendant’s Exhibits 4 and 8 to its Request for Judicial Notice are rulings of this Court, by another Bench Officer in other cases on specific facts. Exhibits 4 and 8 do not relate to the pleading challenged in this case in any way that would affect this ruling.

Demurrer to the FAC is OVERRULED and the request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1-10 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant is to Answer the FAC within 20 days.