Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV13209, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Linda Susan Dang, aka Linda Soo Hoo (“Linda”)[1] and Michael Dang (jointly, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

This is a dispute between the parties concerning their rights and duties arising from a family living trust (“Trust”). On May 28, 2024, Plaintiffs Jeffrey Soo Hoo (“Jeffrey”), Glenn Soo Hoo (“Glenn”) and Jeffrey Soo Hoo, Successor Trustee to The Soo Hoo Family Living Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) asserting the following causes of action: (1) Quiet Title; (2) Cancellation of Instrument; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Intentional Misrepresentation - Fraud; (5) Conversion; (6) Constructive Trust; and (7) Declaratory Relief.

On August 9, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to Complaint (“Demurrer”) on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the allegations contained in the Complaint, and that the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the allegations contained in the complaint pursuant to Probate Code §17200. The Demurrer is unopposed.

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents).) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

CCP 430.10 provides that “[t]he party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading…” (CCP, § 430.10(a).)

Per Probate Code §17000(a), “[t]he superior court having jurisdiction over the trust pursuant to this part has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trusts.” Prob. C. §17000(a). “Exclusive jurisdiction” under section 17000 “refers only to whether a matter should be heard in a superior court’s probate department or in another department of that same superior court.” (Capra v. Capra (2020) 58 Cal.App.5^th 1072, 1084.) “It is intended that the department of the superior court that customarily deals with probate matters will exercise the exclusive jurisdiction relating to internal trust affairs provided by subdivision (a).” (Law Revision Commission Comments, Prob. Code, § 17000; see also Saks v. Damon Raike & Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4^th 419, 429-430.)

The Probate Department of a superior court, therefore, has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trust, as well as concurrent jurisdiction over the following related matters: “(1) Actions and proceedings to determine the existence of trust. (2) Actions or proceedings by or against creditors or debtors of trusts. (3) Other actions and proceedings involving trustees and third persons.” (Prob. C., § 17000 subds. (a) and (b).)

On the face of the Complaint, this Court “has no jurisdiction of the subject to the cause of action alleged in the pleading.” (CCP, § 430.10(a).) The Complaint makes reference to certain allegations regarding Linda’s exercise of undue influence over Walter Soo Hoo (the deceased father of Jeffrey, Glenn and Linda) during the end stages of his life to obtain Trust properties to which she was not entitled (Complaint, ¶¶ 15-20.) The Complaint also contains allegations regarding succession to the role of trustee based on Trust terms and conditions, the purported resignation by Eileen Soo Hoo (the wife of Walter) and acceptance by Jeffrey as trustee (Id., ¶¶ 22-25.) It is then alleged that Linda purportedly made fraudulent conveyances of assets belonging to the Trust without authority under the Trust. (Id., ¶¶ 26-27.) Certain causes of action asserted under the Complaint revolve around “internal affairs” of the trust – cancellation of instrument for undue influence and quiet title, accounting, self-dealing and breach of duty, conversion and constructive trust. In addition, Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue their claims under the Trust also entails an examination of the internal affairs of the Trust, i.e., whether they can rightfully assert claims on behalf of the Trust.

The Probate Code sets forth a nonexclusive list of “internal affair” proceedings over which the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction (Prob.C., § 17200(b).) Among those that apply, or may apply, to Plaintiffs’ Complaint are:

(2) Determining the existence or nonexistence of any immunity, power, privilege, duty, or right.

(5) Settling the accounts and passing upon the acts of the trustee, including the exercise of discretionary powers.

(7) Compelling the trustee to… (B) Provide information about the trust… (C) Account to the beneficiary…

Thus, this proceeding “concerns” the “internal affairs” of the Trust as defined under Probate Code §17200(b). Therefore, Plaintiffs are required to file a petition with the Probate Court for a determination of the issues involving “internal affairs” of the Trust.

Accordingly, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The Court will stay the entry of an order for dismissal for 60 days to allow Plaintiffs to file the appropriate petition in the probate court. A Status Conference Re: Entry of Judgment of Dismissal is scheduled for January 21, 2025 at 08:30 AM in this department.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] First names are used to avoid confusion; no disrespect is intended.