Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2019-00029157-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00029157-CU-FR-CTL MARY HARPER FBO MARY C HARPER IRA VS RODRIGUEZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 10/18/2023

Defendant PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP, LLC FBO THOMAS RYBA's Motion to Add Parties and For Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

The quiet title action already involves all parties who claim an adverse interest in the Property, which includes Ryba/Larson. Code of Civil Procedure § 761.020(c) requires that a complaint to quiet title shall include the 'adverse claims to title' against which a determination is sought. (See also, CCP § 762.010 ['The plaintiff shall name as defendants in the action the persons having adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought.'].) There is no requirement to include parties whose interests are not adverse. Here, the Purchasers do not assert an adverse interest and have never sought to intervene. (Heumann Dec., p. 2 at ¶ 4.) Rather, the Purchasers acquired their interest in the Property fully aware of this pending litigation and the fact that their interests would be subject to any judgment rendered in this proceeding. (Ex. 9, Lis Pendens; Ex. 13, Preliminary Report; Ex. 14, Purchaser's Title Policy; Ex. 15, Emails with Michael Young; Ex. 16, Emails with Douglas Heumann, counsel for the Purchasers; LeVota Dec., pp. 3-4 at ¶¶ 12-15.4 ) (See, e.g., Carr v. Rosien (2015) 238 In California, a notice of lis pendens gives constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title or right to possession of the real property described in the notice. [Citation.] Any taker of a subsequently created interest in that property takes his interest subject to the outcome of that litigation.' ' Beyond the constructive notice provided by the Lis Pendens, the Purchasers' actual notice of the litigation vitiates their potential of bona fide purchaser status. (Heumann Dec., p. 2 at ¶ 3.) CCP § 764.045, states that a judgment does not affect the claims to property of any person who was not a party to the action if (a) the claim was of record at the time the lis pendens was recorded or (b) the claim was known or should have been known by the plaintiff at the time the lis pendens was recorded.

Here, the Purchasers (whose claim to any interest in the Property arose years after the Lis Pendens was recorded) cannot possibly satisfy these requirements, such that their interests would be clearly subject to any judgment entered in this action.

CCP § 389 states that a party (whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action) shall be joined in the action if: (1) 'in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties' or (2) 'he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.' Here, the Purchasers do not satisfy either requirement. The relief sought by Homeward (i.e., that its trust deed is a first priority lien against the Property and that Ryba/Larson's lien was junior) can be granted among the parties already involved in the action. And, the Purchasers' ability to protect their status as Larson's successor-in-interest subject to the judgment entered in this action is not impaired or impeded Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039983  39 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MARY HARPER FBO MARY C HARPER IRA VS RODRIGUEZ  37-2019-00029157-CU-FR-CTL by the Purchasers' absence from this action, as demonstrated by the fact that the Purchasers have not sought to intervene in this action (despite being aware of the litigation pending litigation prior to acquiring their interests; (2) they are aware that their interest are subject to any judgment entered in this action; and (3) they Purchasers have no desire to intervene in this action. (LeVota Dec., at ¶ 15; Heumann Dec., p. 2 at ¶ 4 Finally, litigating this matter to judgment without the Purchasers will not leave any other person already a party to this action subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of their claimed interests. The Purchasers acknowledge that their interests are subject to this litigation. (LeVota Dec., pp. 4-5 at ¶ 15; Heumann Dec., p. 2 at ¶ 4.) There is no 'substantial risk' of multiple actions. Accordingly, there is no need to join the Purchasers in this action.

Leave to Amend Ryba Seeks leave to file a cross-complaint asserting a claim for quiet title. There is no explanation for why he has waited until the eve of trial to seek leave. Further, it is not clear why a quiet title action is necessary. Ryba states: 'it is unclear' whether he needs to bring a quiet title cause of action. Ryba's proposed quiet title action seeks a determination that he has a 32% ownership interest in the Property (but, the prayer for relief makes no mention about whether or not that interest is bound by Homeward's lien). Ryba does not identify any one who disputes his ownership interest. Neither Rodriguez, Harper/Harwood nor Homeward claim an ownership interest. And, the Purchasers claim to only own the 68% transferred by Larson. Given the title issue presented by Homeward's action, there is no need for Ryba to file a cross-complaint.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039983  39