Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00229, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00229 Hearing Date: May 29, 2024 Dept: C
STATER BROTHERS MARKETS v. LA MIRADA CENTER, INC.
CASE NO.: 22NWCV00229
HEARING: 5/29/24 @ 9:30 A.M.
#1
TENTATIVE RULING
I.
Cross-Defendant Stater Brothers Market’s demurrer to Cross-Complainant’s
first amended cross-complaint is OVERRULED.
II.
Cross-Defendant’s motion to strike portions of Cross-Complainant’s first
amended cross-complaint is DENIED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Background
In its First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), Defendant/Cross-Complainant
La Mirada Center, Inc. (“La Mirada”) alleges that it owns parcels of land
within a larger commercial area (the “Center”).
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Stater Brothers Markets (“Stater Brothers”) operates
a market on a separate parcel of land within the Center. (FACC ¶ 6.) The Center
has a shared parking lot and grounds that are managed by Stater Brothers. (FACC
¶ 7.) Under its authority to manage the grounds, Stater Brothers “shall expend
only the monies reasonably necessary for such operation and maintenance in
order to keep the common area in good repair and clean condition and operate
the same as a non-profit business to the end that the expense in connection
therewith shall be kept a minimum.” (FACC ¶ 8.) Beginning in 2018, Stater
Brothers wrongfully billed for gardening services. As a result of the unpaid bills, Stater
Brothers recorded two Notices of Delinquent Assessments against La Mirada, the
first on or about February 22, 2019, in the amount of $12,908.32 and the second
on or about October 8, 2020, in the amount of $18,047.60. (FACC ¶ 10.) La
Mirada also disputes the amount Stater Brothers spent on repaving and the
amount of offsets La Mirada is entitled to. (FACC ¶¶ 11-17.) In connection with
its Complaint, Stater Brothers wrongfully recorded a lis pendens seeking $66,517.77.
(FACC ¶ 18.) At the time of the complaint, La Mirada anticipated obtaining a
refinance of its first mortgage; however, it could not do so because of the
recorded lis pendens and Notices of Delinquent Assessment. (FACC ¶ 19.) By
stipulation, Stater Bros subsequently removed the lis pendens. Unknown to La Mirada, however, Stater
Brothers did not release the Notices of Delinquent Assessment which remained on
title. (FACC ¶¶ 20-21.) La Mirada holds a line of credit secured by its
property. The line of credit came up for
renewal in May 2023. (FACC ¶ 22.) During the renewal process, the lender discovered
the three Notices of Delinquent Assessment (“Notices”) recorded by Stater
Brothers and conditioned renewal of the line of credit upon release of the
Notices. (FACC ¶ 23.) La Mirada understood that its stipulation with Stater
Brothers covered the Notices in addition to the lis pendens, and La Mirada
asked Stater Brothers to release the Notices.
Stater Brothers refused. Instead,
Stater Brothers demanded the sum of $108,756.83 to record releases of the
Notices. (FACC ¶ 24.) La Mirada was forced to pay the amount of Stater Brothers’
demand under protest. La Mirada demanded
that Stater Brothers dismiss its complaint, which it did on August 14, 2023.
(FACC ¶¶ 25-26.) La Mirada seeks to recover the damages it incurred by having
to pay the amount of the Notices. (FACC ¶ 27.)
The FACC brings causes of action for:
1) Breach of Written
Contract;
2) Breach of Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
3) Negligence;
4) Breach of Fiduciary
Duty;
5) Slander of Title.
Stater Brothers demurs
to the fifth cause of action for Slander of Title on the ground that it does
not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Stater Brothers also
moves to strike certain allegations.
A demurrer is an
objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the
face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial
notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30,
subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan
(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose
of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising
questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153
Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) The court
“treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but
not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . .” (Berkley
v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525 (Berkley).) “In the
construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its
allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice
between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 452; see also Stevens v. Super.
Ct. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.)
“When a court evaluates a complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable inferences from the facts pled.”
(Duval v. Board of Trustees
(2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.)
Meet and Confer
Cross-Defendant satisfied
the meet-and-confer requirements. (Decl. Parmar, ¶¶ 5, 9, Ex. C; Code. Civ. Proc.,
§§ 430.41, subd. (a), 435.5, subd. (a).)
Fifth Cause of Action –
Slander of Title
Stater Brothers demurs to the fifth cause of
action for Slander of Title on the ground that it does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The elements of
slander of title are the following: (1) a publication; (2) without privilege or
justification; (3) that is false; and (4) causes direct and immediate pecuniary
loss. (M.F. Farming, Co. v. Couch Distributing Co. (2012) 207
Cal.App.4th 180, 198-199.)
Slander of title occurs when one publishes untrue and disparaging
statements about someone else’s property that would lead a reasonable person to
foresee that a prospective purchaser or lessee might abandon his intentions. (M.F. Farming, Co. v. Couch Distributing Co.,
supra, 207 Cal.App.4th 180 at p. 198.) It diminishes the
vendibility of property. (Id. at 199.) To be disparaging, a
statement need not be a complete denial of title in others but may be any
unfounded claim of an interest in the property which casts doubt upon its
ownership. (Ibid.)
Here, the Court determines that the FACC adequately pleads the
fifth cause of action for Slander of Title.
The FACC alleges a publication (¶¶ 10, 47) without privilege or
justification (Id.), that is false (Id.), and causes direct and
immediate pecuniary loss (¶ 50).
Stater Brothers argues that the FACC fails to plead malice, an
essential element of slander. Stater
Brothers points to the following language in Gudger
v. Manton (1943) 21 Cal.2d 537, 544: “True, it has been said or
intimated that malice is an essential element in slander of title.” However, malice can be express or
implied. The Gudger court also
stated, “if there is an absence of privilege or justification, and the other
elements necessary are present, an implication of malice in law is proper …” (Ibid.)
Here, malice is implied because the FACC alleges that Stater Brothers’ actions
were not privileged (¶ 50) and the other elements of Slander are present.
Accordingly, the demurrer to
the Fifth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.
Motion to Strike
Stater
Brothers moves to strike certain allegations in the FACC. The Court may strike
out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter in a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 436.)
Meet and Confer
Stater
Brothers satisfied the meet-and-confer requirements. (Decl. Parmar, ¶¶ 5, 9,
Ex. C; Code. Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)
Discussion
Stater
Brothers moves to strike allegations related to slander of title, including an
award of punitive damages.
Stater
Brothers argues that it did not act with malice, but with express written
authority. Stater Brothers also argues that its demurrer should be sustained
and any claim or allegations or references related to slander of title should
be stricken. But as discussed above, malice is not required to be pleaded for
the slander of title cause of action.
Thus, the
motion to strike is DENIED.