Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV28232, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV28232 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
ROSALIE GENUS, Plaintiff, v. JANET HAYWOOD, et al., Defendants. |
Case No:
23STCV28232 Hearing Date: January 28, 2025 Calendar Number: 2 |
Defendants Janet Haywood (“Haywood”) and 8424 Western Plaza,
LLC (“Western Plaza”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) move for judgment on
the pleadings as to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff
Rosalie Genus (“Plaintiff”).
The Court DENIES the motion.
This is a real property dispute.
The following facts are taken from the allegations of the FAC.
Plaintiff and Haywood are sisters. Haywood owned the real
property located at 10427 S. Denker Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90047 (the
“Property”).
In 2007, Plaintiff moved into the Property as a tenant.
On January 27, Haywood formed the Western Plaza as an LLC.
On April 7, 2017, Haywood transferred title to the Property to Western Plaza.
Plaintiff alleges that on January 25, 2018, Plaintiff and
Western Plaza entered a written agreement whereby Plaintiff would purchase the
property from Western Plaza for $325,000.00. Plaintiff alleges that she complied
with the terms of the purchase agreement. Plaintiff alleges that Western Plaza,
acting through Haywood, refused to sign the necessary documents to close escrow
and thus transfer the property.
What followed was a series of lawsuits resulting in
stipulated judgements, each of which provided that Defendants Haywood and
Western Plaza would transfer the Property to Plaintiff, and each of which
Defendants Haywood and Western Plaza violated by refusing to sign the transfer
documents.
Most recently, in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
19STCV39523, the Court ordered on November 29, 2022 that the court clerk would
be appointed as an elisor to execute sale documents on behalf of Haywood and
Western Plaza. Plaintiff brought an ex parte application on May 18, 2023 for an
order directing the court clerk to sign the escrow instructions for the
transfer (the “Escrow Instructions”), which the Court granted. The court clerk
signed the Escrow Instructions.
The Escrow Instructions provide for the duties and
obligations of New Era Escrow, Inc. (“New Era”), which include engaging Lawyers
Title Company (“Lawyers Title”) to prepare and deliver to Plaintiff a policy of
title insurance.
Plaintiff alleges that she provided the signed Escrow
Instructions to the escrow officer, New Era and to the title company, Lawyers
Title.
Plaintiff alleges that Haywood and the Western Plaza
contacted New Era and demanded that New Era refrain from closing escrow to
allow Haywood and Western Plaza to appeal the judgment in Case No. 19STCV39523.
The Escrow Instructions do not provide a grace period for appeal, nor do they
permit a party to unilaterally cancel the agreement. Haywood and Western Plaza
have not posted bond.
Plaintiff alleges that New Era refused to comply with the
Escrow Instructions and close escrow.
Plaintiff alleges that Lawyers Title has not delivered a
title insurance policy to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed this action on November 16, 2023. The
operative complaint is now the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which is filed
against Defendants Haywood, Western Plaza, New Era, and Lawyers Title. New Era
and Lawyers Title were not parties to the previous actions. The FAC raises
claims for (1) declaratory relief (against all Defendants); (2) injunction
(against New Era and Lawyers Title); (3) injunction (against Haywood and
Western Plaza); and (4) specific performance (against New Era and Lawyers
Title). Plaintiff seeks damages from Haywood and Western Plaza, and an order
compelling New Era to comply with the Escrow Instructions and close escrow.
Lawyers Title was dismissed from this action on September 5,
2024 pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On
December 10, 2024, Moving Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to
the FAC. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Moving Defendants filed a reply.
“A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out
of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting
[the] plaintiff's right of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is
set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings or move for a new trial or
demand notice of subsequent proceedings.” (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa
AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385–386 [citation and
quotation marks omitted].)
Default was entered against Western Plaza on January 17,
2024. Western Plaza has not sought or obtained relief from default. Western
Plaza’s motion is therefore improper.
The Court therefore denies the motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to Western Plaza.
Haywood argues that Plaintiff’s declaratory relief claim
does not seek prospective relief, but rather seeks relief for alleged past
wrongs.
Plaintiff has set forth facts showing that there is an
actual controversy concerning
whether Moving Defendants have a
right to block the court-ordered sale by instructing New Era to refrain from
closing escrow and recording the signed deed. This is not a past wrong, but
rather represents alleged ongoing conduct by Moving Defendants.
The
Court therefore denies the motion as to this claim.
“The elements of a
cause of action for injunctive relief are (1) a tort or other wrongful act
constituting a cause of action; and (2) irreparable injury, i.e., a factual
showing that the wrongful act constitutes an actual or threatened injury to
property or personal rights which cannot be compensated by an ordinary damage
award.” (Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman
Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410, citation omitted.) Notably,
“injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a
cause of action must exist before injunctive relief can be granted.” (Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123
Cal.App.3d 334, 356.)
Haywood argues that she and Western Plaza are parties to the
agreements that give rise to this case, and therefore cannot be held liable for
conspiracy to interfere with the contracts. This argument is a non-sequitur
because Plaintiff does not raise a claim for conspiracy to interfere with
contract, or for regular interference with contract, for that matter. Rather,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are interfering with Plaintiff’s rights and
interests to the Property by blocking the close of escrow. (FAC ¶ 57.)
Haywood argues that injunctive relief is a remedy and not a
cause of action. While this is true, as discussed above, a plaintiff may seek
injunctive relief alongside a regular cause of action. Plaintiff has stated a
claim for declaratory relief as to the parties’ rights under the escrow
documents.
The Court therefore denies the motion as to this claim.