Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV01431, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01431    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Cynthia Edwards (“Edwards”) demurrers to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Green Development LLC (“Plaintiff”). Edwards additionally moves to strike the complaint.

Edwards’ demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and this action is STAYED pending the outcome of Los Angeles Superior Probate Court Case No. B296924.

Edwards’ motion to strike is DENIED AS MOOT.

Background

This is a quiet title action. The property at issue is real property located at 1032 West 136th Street in Compton, California (the “Property”). The Property was held by Alonzo Toles (“Toles”) until his death.

On August 4, 2015, Eugene Davis (“Davis”), a nephew of the decedent Alonzo Toles, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Probate Court a petition to determine succession to the Property, Case No. B296924. (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Exh. A.)

On February 5, 2016, the probate court determined that Toles had died intestate, and transferred the Property to nine cousins, including Davis.  (Complaint, Exh. B at p. 4.)  On October 3, 2016, Plaintiff entered into a contract of sale to purchase the property from Davis.  (Id.)

On January 19, 2017, Edwards filed a petition to set aside the order determining succession (Complaint, Exh. B at p. 5.)  Edwards, who claims to be the beneficiary of the decedent’s will, argued that Davis had fraudulently failed to join her when he knew of the possible existence of the will. (Id.) Edwards filed and recorded a lis pendens on the Property on January 24, 2017. (Complaint, ¶ 12.)

The Probate Court held a one-day bench trial and granted the set-aside order requested by Edwards.  (Complaint, Exh. B at p. 5.) Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the set-aside order, but also held that the Probate Court had not decided the question of the validity of the will alleged by Edwards or the ultimate question of the property’s ownership. (Complaint, Exh. B at pp. 12-13.)

Plaintiff filed this action on January 13, 2022. The operative complaint is the FAC, which is unverified and alleges claims for quiet title and declaratory and injunctive relief. The FAC names as defendants Eugene Davis, both individually and as a representative of the estate of Alonzo Toles; Cynthia Edwards; and all persons claiming any interest in the property at issue.

Edwards filed these motions on September 11, 2023. Plaintiff filed oppositions, and Edwards filed replies.

Judicial Notice

Edwards requests that the Court take judicial notice of two items:

1.. Petition to Determine Successor to Real Property filed in Case No. B296924 entitled Estate of Alonzo Toles, Deceased, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on August 4, 2015.

2. Opinion from the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate

District, Division 3, B296924, filed on August 24, 2021.

Judicial notice may be taken of the records of any court in the State of California. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d). The Court therefore GRANTS Edwards’ request for judicial notice.

Legal Standard

As a general matter, 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 pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

“In order for the bar of the statute of limitations to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows merely that the action may be barred.” (McMahon v. Republic Van & Storage Co. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 871, 874.)

Discussion

Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction

“Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, when two [California] superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved.” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769-770 [internal quotations and citations omitted].) “[T]he pendency of another earlier action growing out of the same transaction and between the same parties is a ground for abatement of the second action.” (Id. at 770 [internal quotations and citations omitted].) “The rule is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (Shaw v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 245, 255 [internal citations omitted].)

The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and the statutory plea in abatement should be raised by demurrer where the issue appears on the face of the complaint and by answer where factual issues must be resolved. (Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 771.) “Where abatement is required [under the plea in abatement or the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction], the second action should be stayed, not dismissed.” (Ibid.)

Furthermore, "[a] party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading on the grounds that “[t] is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (c).)

          The concurrent probate case involves the same subject matter as this case – the clarification of title to the Property. Davis, Edwards,  and Plaintiff are all parties to the probate case. Indeed, Plaintiff was the appellant in the unsuccessful appeal of the Probate Court’s decision.  If the alleged will is entered into probate, the probate court will likely reach a determination about who holds title to the property. Thus, a ruling in this court on Plaintiff’s quiet title action would risk conflicting with the findings of the probate court.

It is therefore improper for the court to assert jurisdiction over this matter. Because the lack of jurisdiction resulting from the probate court’s assertion of jurisdiction cannot be remedied, amendment would be futile at this time, and leave to amend is denied.

          Because a stay on this action is appropriate, the Court does not reach Plaintiff’s remaining arguments on the demurrer or the motion to strike.