Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 20TRCV00581, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00581    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date: August 23, 2022                                 

Moving Parties: Defendants Jaynette “JJ” Denham, Eric Edenholm, Imports of Scottsdale, LLC, and Zoey Air LLC               

Responding Party: Plaintiff Michael Monsalve        

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

            The court considered the moving and opposing papers.  No reply papers have been filed as of August 18, 2022.

RULING

            The demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 20 days leave to amend, as to the 6^th cause of action.

            The demurrer is overruled as to the 7^th cause of action.

BACKGROUND

            On August 17, 2020, plaintiff Michael Monsalve filed a complaint against Defendants Jaynette “JJ” Denham, Eric Edenholm, Imports of Scottsdale, LLC, and Zoey Air LLC.  The operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint, which asserts causes of action for (1) conversion, (2) fraud-intentional misrepresentation, (3) fraud-false promise, (4) common count, (5) injunctive relief, (6) quiet title, and (7) declaratory relief.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

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.  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.”  SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.  “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 p. 747. 

DISCUSSION

            Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to constitute those causes of action and they are uncertain.

            Uncertainty

            A defendant may demur to a complaint on the grounds that the pleading is “uncertain”. CCP § 430.10(f).  CCP section 430.10(f) provides that a pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous and unintelligible. Id.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  Khoury v.¿Maly’s¿of California, Inc.¿(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.  “A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she¿cannot reasonably determine¿what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.”  Weil & Brown,¿Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group)¿§ 7:85¿(emphasis in original).  “The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.”  Brea v.¿McGlashan¿(1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.  “It goes to the doubt as to what the pleader means by the facts alleged.” (Id.)  “Such a demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet.”  People v. Lim¿(1941) 18 Cal.2d 872, 882.¿¿ 

A review of Plaintiff’s quiet title and declaratory relief reveal that they are not so bad that Defendants cannot reasonably respond to them. 

Thus, Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiff’s quiet title and declaratory relief causes of action on the grounds of uncertainty is OVERRULED.

Quiet Title (6^th COA)

CCP section 761.020 provides that a complaint for quiet title shall be verified and include: (1) a description of the property that is the subject of the action, including its usual location (for tangible property); (2) the plaintiff’s title as to which determination is sought and basis of the title; (3) the adverse claims to the plaintiff’s title against which determination is sought; (4) the date of which the determination is sought; and (5) a prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims.  See CCP § 761.020.  

            Plaintiff alleges that he is the rightful owner of the subject Ferrari, which Plaintiff initially bought for $1 million, and obtained title, from Defendant Edenholm.  SAC ¶¶ 10, 67.  Thereafter, Edenholm contacted Plaintiff that he had a buyer for Plaintiff’s Ferrari.  Id. at ¶ 15.  On the belief that Edenholm would sell the Ferrari and give Plaintiff the proceeds from the sale, Plaintiff returned the Ferrari to Edenholm.  Id. at ¶ 15.  Edenholm misrepresented to Plaintiff that he was selling the Ferrari, and actually took a loan out against it, by using a duplicate title to the Ferrari.  Id. at 15.  On May 19, 2020, Defendant Denham, acting as Edenholm’s agent, attempted to induce Plaintiff into releasing Edenholm from his obligation, as to the Ferrari, by providing Plaintiff a March Race Car and Porsche Cup Car (the “Cars”), but Plaintiff knew that the offer was not made in good faith, as he could not sell the Cars.  Id. at 18.  In May 2020, Denham presented a settlement agreement to Plaintiff, wherein she represented that she was the manager of Defendant Imports of Scottsdale, to resolve the dispute between Plaintiff and Edenholm.   Id. at ¶ 19.  Plaintiff did not sign the agreement.  Id. at 19.  On May 20, 2020 Denham delivered the Cars to Plaintiff, and offered to sell them to get Plaintiff’s $1 million dollars returned.  Id. at ¶ 20.  Sometime thereafter, Denham asked for the Cars back, but Plaintiff did not allow Denham to take possession of the Cars in fear that she would take them without delivering money to Plaintiff.  Id.  

            Defendants fraudulent and wrongful acts caused the Ferrari to be sold to third parties, whose title is void and/or voidable. SAC, ¶67.  Galactic Ventures, Inc. is the current owner of the Ferrari and Plaintiff provided the addresses where he believes it may be located.  Id. at ¶ 67. 

Plaintiff also alleges that he is the rightful owner of the Cars because Defendant Denham delivered the Cars to plaintiff without any agreement that plaintiff would return them.  Id. at ¶¶ 68.  The Cars are currently located in Plaintiff’s garage.  Id. at ¶ 68.  Plaintiff is uncertain if title may exist as to the Cars.  Id.  Plaintiff believes his possession of the Cars is the ultimate determination of his ownership of the Cars.  Id.  

Defendants claim interest in the vehicles. Id. at ¶¶69-70.  Plaintiff is seeking to quiet title against Defendants’ claims.  Id. at ¶73.

Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a cause of action for quiet title because the SAC does not conform with the statutory pleading requirements under CCP §761.020 as Plaintiff fails to state the factual or legal basis as to why he should be recognized as the owner of the Cars.  Defendants also contend that Plaintiff failed to establish the fourth element of this cause of action.

The Court agrees with Defendants.  While Plaintiff alleges that Denham attempted to settle the dispute between Plaintiff and Edenholm by offering the Cars in exchange for Edenholm’s obligation to the Ferrari, Plaintiff does not allege that he accepted any of the offers.  In addition, while Plaintiff alleges that Denham delivered the Cars to Plaintiff, there are no allegations that at the time of delivery Edenholm was transferring title to the Cars to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff instead alleges that he has title to the Cars because there was no agreement to return the vehicles.  This is insufficient to establish title.  In addition, Plaintiff fails to allege the date of which the determination is sought as to all three vehicles, as required by CCP § 761.020.

Defendants’ Demurrer as to Plaintiff’s quiet title cause of action is SUSTAINED, with 20 days leave to amend.

Declaratory Relief

Defendants contend that they are demurring to Plaintiff’s cause of action for declaratory relief, but a review of the memorandum of points and authorities reveals that they are looking to strike items Nos. 1-2 from Plaintiff’s prayer for relief.  Accordingly, to the extent that Defendants believed that the prayer for relief were improper, they should have filed a motion to strike.

Defendants’ Demurrer as to Plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action is OVERRULED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of ruling.