Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCP00859, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP00859    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Cynthia Maldonado (“Ms. Maldonado”) and Victor Maldonado (“Mr. Maldonado”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges financial elder abuse.  In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: Plaintiffs are successors in interest of Elisa Carbajal (“Decedent”), who died on May 26, 2021.  (Complaint ¶¶ 7, 9.)  Between 2000 through 2018, Decedent held an ownership interest in real property (the “Property”).  (Complaint ¶ 10.)  In or around 2018, Moving Defendants also held an interest in the Property together with Decedent.  (Complaint ¶ 11.)  On information and belief, Carbajal intended that her interest in the Property be divided among her nieces, except for Ms. Maldonado, upon her death.  (Complaint ¶ 11.)  On information and belief, from between at least 2016 until her death in 2021, Decedent was cognitively impaired and was susceptible to undue influence.  (Complaint ¶ 12.)  On or about March 14, 2018, while acting as fiduciaries for Decedent, Moving Defendants executed and recorded a quitclaim deed which transferred Decedent’s interest in the Property to Moving Defendants.  (Complaint ¶ 13.)

            Moving Defendants filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to Complaint on the grounds that it alleges insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Moving Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.

DEMURRER

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)  The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.  (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.)  With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.  (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)  A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

DISCUSSION

Third Cause of Action: Financial Elder Abuse

            The Elder Abuse Act (the “Act”) defines financial abuse as follows: 

(a)   “Financial abuse” of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following: 

(1)   Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. 

(2)   Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. 

(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70. 

(b)   A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult. 

            (Wel. & Inst. Code § 15610.30, subds. (a)-(b).)

Because a plaintiff alleging financial elder abuse seeks statutory remedies under the Act, a heightened pleading standard applies.  (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2001) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 410.)

The Court agrees with Moving Defendants’ argument that the Complaint alleges insufficient facts to allege financial elder abuse.  The Complaint alleges that Moving Defendants transferred Decedent’s interest in the Property to themselves and in conclusory fashion alleges that this conduct amounts to financial abuse as defined under the Act.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 15-16.)  These allegations do not rise to the standard required to allege statutory causes of action.

The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer with 20 days leave to amend. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 6th day of October 2022