Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01879, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01879    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 3-14-24

Case # 23CHCV01879, Laura Medrano vs. Leandra Garcia, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

 

DEMURRER

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Leandra Garcia, individually and as Trustee of the Leandra Garcia Living Trust, Daniel Sada III, and Maria Miranda

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Laura Medrano

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

·         1st Cause of Action for Fraudulent/Intentional Misrepresentation

·         2nd Cause of Action for Concealment

·         3rd Cause of Action for Quiet Title

·         4th Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

RULING: Demurrer is sustained in its entirety with leave to amend

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action arises from the alleged fraudulent transfer of real property located at 1049 Hewitt Street, San Fernando, CA 91340 (the “Property”). On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff Laura Medrano (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Leandra Garcia (“Garcia”), individually and as Trustee of The Leandra M. Garcia Living Trust, Daniel Sada III (“Sada”), Maria Miranda (“Miranda”) (collectively “Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.

 

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging four causes of action for fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation, concealment, quiet title, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

 

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant Garcia were co-owners of the Property. (FAC, ¶ 11.) The FAC alleges that, in or around 2013, Defendant Garcia took advantage of Plaintiff’s vulnerable state and defrauded her. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that such fraud occurred when Plaintiff’s mother was diagnosed with cancer, was hospitalized, and Plaintiff was occupied with her mother’s illness. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Defendant Garcia contacted Plaintiff, told Plaintiff she needed to sign a document for tax purposes only, and defrauded Plaintiff into signing a document which transferred all of Plaintiff’s interest in the Property to Defendant Garcia. (FAC, ¶ 13.) Each time Plaintiff questioned Defendant Garica about the purpose of the form she had to sign, she was told it was related to the Property’s taxes and that she should not worry about anything. (FAC, ¶ 14.) Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, she signed away her rights to her portion of the Property and Defendant Garcia later transferred all rights, title, and interest to the entire Property by way of a quitclaim deed to The Leandra M. Garcia Living Trust, Dated May 3, 2013. (FAC, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff alleges that in or about July 2020, Defendant Garcia granted the entire Property to Defendants Sada and Miranda. (FAC, ¶ 18.)

 

The FAC further alleges that at no time prior to January 2023 did Plaintiff know that any of the documents she was given by Defendant Garcia to sign would in any way result in Plaintiff giving up her legal claims and rights to her portion of the Property. (FAC, ¶ 17.) The FAC alleges that, on around January 2023, Plaintiff found out for the first time that she no longer had any rights, title, and interest to the Property, and that Defendant Garica had defrauded her into signing away her rights to the Property. (FAC, ¶ 19.)

 

Defendants filed a demurrer to each cause of action in the FAC on November 3, 2023. Plaintiff filed her opposition on March 1, 2024. Defendants filed their reply on March 8, 2024. Although filed and served late, the Court exercises its discretion and will consider Defendants’ reply brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).)

 

ANALYSIS

Request for Judicial Notice: Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of a quit claim deed concerning the Property that was recorded with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request for judicial notice on the grounds that Defendants are requesting that the Court take judicial notice of a document that is disputed by Plaintiff. The Court “may take judicial notice of something that cannot be reasonably controverted [such as a recorded deed], even if it negates an express allegation of the pleading.” (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382.) “A court may take judicial notice of a recorded deed.” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 803.) The request for judicial notice is therefore granted.

 

Meet and Confer: Per Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), the parties were required to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference before bringing the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) An insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) Defendants’ counsel attests to attempting to meet and confer by telephone with Plaintiff’s counsel. (Brown Decl., ¶¶ 4-8.) The meet and confer requirement has not been met. While the Court will still assess the merits of the demurrer, the Court reminds the parties of the need to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

 

Defendants demur to each cause of action in the FAC on the grounds that all causes of action asserted therein are time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Defendants further argue that each cause of action asserted in the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and are stated ambiguously and unintelligibly.

 

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer on the grounds that the causes of action in the FAC are not time barred because the delayed discovery rule applies, and Plaintiff has alleged facts in support of the delayed discovery rule. Plaintiff further argues that she has alleged sufficient facts as to the First Cause of Action for Fraudulent/Intentional Misrepresentation, Second Cause of Action for Concealment, and Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiff requests leave to amend if the demurrer is sustained in whole or in part.

 

“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.”  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) “[T]he court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.”  (Ibid.) A demurrer accepts as true all well pleaded facts and those facts of which the court can take judicial notice but not deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) Although courts construe pleadings liberally, sufficient facts must be alleged to support the allegations pled to survive a demurrer. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Serv. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) 

 

A cause of action for fraud is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d).) A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. (Pugliese v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1450.) Where a quiet title cause of action is based on fraud, such quiet title cause of action is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. (Ankoanda v. Walker-Smith (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 610, 615.)

 

“Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements.” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806.) “An important exception to the general rule of accrual is the discovery rule, which postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.” (Id. at p. 807.) “A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for its elements.” (Ibid.) “[S]uspicion of one or more of the elements of a cause of action, coupled with knowledge of any remaining elements, will generally trigger the statute of limitations period.” (Ibid.) “The discovery rule only delays accrual until the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action.” (Ibid.) “In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, [a] plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” (Id. at p. 808.) “In assessing the sufficiency of the allegations of delayed discovery, the court places the burden on the plaintiff to show diligence; conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.” (Ibid.)

 

Here, the first, second, and fourth causes of action are only alleged against Defendant Garcia. Based on the allegations of the FAC, the alleged wrongful actions of Defendant Garica occurred in 2013; however, this action was not filed until June 27, 2023. On the face of the FAC, Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Fraudulent/Intentional Misrepresentation, Second Cause of Action for Concealment, and Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action are all barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The FAC does not sufficiently invoke the delayed discovery rule because the FAC does not specifically allege: (1) the manner of Plaintiff’s discovery of Defendant Garica’s alleged wrongful actions; or (2) Plaintiff’s inability to have made an earlier discovery of Defendant Garica’s actions despite reasonable diligence. In fact, the FAC does not allege any reasonable diligence.

 

As to the third cause of action, which is only alleged against Defendants Sada and Miranda, the Court finds that such cause of action fails for the same reasons that the first, second, and fourth causes of action in the FAC. On its face, the third cause of action in the FAC is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to invoke the delayed discovery rule. The third cause of action arises from the alleged wrongful actions of Defendant Garcia, which occurred in 2013. The opposition does not even address Defendants’ argument concerning the insufficiency of the Third Cause of Action for Quiet Title. Plaintiff has therefore conceded to such argument as “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)

 

As to Defendants’ demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty, the Court rejects such grounds because the allegations of the FAC are “sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant[s] of the issues that must be met.” (Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599, 605.)

 

Given that the Court has determined that the causes of action asserted in the FAC are all barred by their respective statutes of limitation, the Court need not address Defendants’ arguments concerning whether Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to satisfy the elements of each cause of action.  

 

The demurrer of Defendants to Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action is sustained with leave to amend.

 

 

Moving party to give notice.