Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01245447, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling
Defendants Alin Munteanu and Vasile Popovici’s demurrer to Plaintiff Saint Mary (The Falling Asleep of the Ever Virgin Mary) Romanian Orthodox Church’s Complaint, is overruled.
Belated Opposition
Plaintiff’s opposition was belatedly filed and served. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff erroneously filed a proposed order denying the demurrer, instead of a memorandum of points and authorities in support of an opposition. (See ROA 65.) Accordingly, there is no memorandum of points and authorities in support of the opposition for the Court to review. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the late filing. The Court exercises its discretion and declines to consider the opposition and supporting papers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 625, disapproved on other grounds by Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019 [“We conclude that appellant established neither diligence nor good cause with reference to the late filing of her opposition”].)
Requests for Judicial Notice
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted as to exhibits B through E. (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d).) But in taking judicial notice of these documents, the court does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters stated therein, (i.e., that the allegations stated therein are true). (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) Defendants’ request is denied as to exhibit A. Defendants fail to proffer any authority for taking judicial notice of the document entitled, “Bylaws of ‘Sain [sic] Mary’ (The Falling Asleep of the Ever Virgin Mary) Romanian Orthodox Church.” That the document may be available through a website does not mean that it is subject to judicial notice. (See Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 194.)
Special Demurrer for Defect or Misjoinder of Parties/Standing/Real Parties in Interest
Defendants argue that indispensable parties have not been joined. (Mot., at p. 11.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff lacks standing because the action is not being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. (Mot., at pp. 8-9.) Defendants contend, for example, that “Plaintiff is not the actual Church” and “the actual Church has no interest in this case.” (Dem. at pp. 9, 11.)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (d), Defendants specially demur to the Complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to join an indispensable party, specifically “several individuals, including, but not limited to, Mr. Razvan-Ionescu Dore, Mirela Bogdan, Adriana Borcea Teodora Hascheff, Jan Mirza, and Florin Tudor (hereinafter collectively referred to ‘Unnamed Plaintiffs’) . . .” (Mot., at p. 2.)
A party is indispensable where the plaintiff seeks a type of affirmative relief that, if granted would affect the interest of a third person not joined. (Sierra Club, Inc. v. California Coastal Comm. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 495, 501; Code Civ. Proc., § 398, subd. (a).) In other words, a plaintiff is required to join as parties to the action any person whose interest is such that any judgment rendered in his or her absence might either: (a) prejudice his or her ability to protect his or her interest in later litigation; or (b) leave any of the parties before the court exposed to a risk of additional liability or inconsistent obligations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a); Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 796 [where nonjoinder may expose an existing party to multiple liability].) If any such persons are not named as parties to the lawsuit, the complaint must state their names (if known), and the reasons why they have not been joined. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (c).)
Here, Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s claims are “all based upon what the Unnamed Plaintiffs contend to be their claims, when in fact only the Church as that authority. The reality is that the Unnamed Plaintiffs are the true Plaintiff, and they have failed to join themselves herein.” (Mot., at p. 11, emphasis in original.) This contention does not appear to be an indispensable parties claim. In any event, it appears to rely upon extrinsic facts, which the Court cannot consider. (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) Accepting the allegations in the Complaint and no extrinsic facts, the “Unnamed Plaintiffs” are not necessary parties. The special demurrer for defect or misjoinder of parties is overruled.
A claim that a plaintiff is not the real party in interest is a ground for a general demurrer, if the defect appears on the face of the complaint or from matters judicial noticeable. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 7:72.) Here, the defect does not appear on the face of the complaint or from the documents that the Court granted judicial notice. Accordingly, the demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff lacks standing and is not the real party in interest, is overruled.
General Demurrer
A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code sections 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413.)
Declaratory Relief (First Cause of Action)
To state a cause of action for declaratory relief, Plaintiff must allege: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the party’s rights or obligations. (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1582.)
With respect to Plaintiff’s declaratory relief claim, Defendants fail to explain how this “controversy” is “not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances.’” (Mot., at p. 10.) To the contrary, there appears to be a “controversy” that is “ripe” for adjudication, i.e., who gets to control the church, including the $580,000 allegedly withdrawn from its account. (See, e.g., Providence Baptist Church of San Francisco v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco (1952) 40 Cal.2d 55, 63–64 [“But where, as here, the question presented is whether the property and funds of the church are being handled in accordance with the by-laws and rules of the church corporation or such by-laws and rules are being properly observed by the governing body of the church, those aggrieved may seek redress through court action”].) The demurrer as to this cause of action is overruled.
Conversion (Second Cause of Action)
Lastly, the elements of a conversion claim are: “(1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of personal property; (2) the defendant's disposition of the property in a manner that is inconsistent with the plaintiff's property rights; and (3) resulting damages.” (Regent Alliance Ltd. v. Rabizadeh (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1181.) Here, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that: (1) Plaintiff’s bank account had (at least) $580,000; (2) Defendants withdrew $580,000 from the church’s bank account by presenting “false and misleading documents to Wells Fargo”; and (3) that Plaintiff has been deprived “of its rightful use of the funds” as a result of Defendants’ “withdrawal and retention of these funds.” (Compl., at ¶¶ 15, 26-27.) The demurrer as to this cause of action is overruled.
Within 15 days, Defendants shall file an answer to the Complaint. Defendants shall serve the answer pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE