Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00423, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21LBCV00423    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: S27

Plaintiff, Trika Sprewell filed this action against Defendant, Juana Flores on 8/10/21.  Plaintiff’s complaint is for quiet title and declaratory relief, and alleges Plaintiff is the exclusive title holder to the subject property and Defendant is wrongfully asserting a claim to the property.  On 6/11/22, Defendant filed this “motion for order giving Defendant exclusive right of possession of real property and ejectment of Plaintiff from property.”

The motion is denied for the following reasons:

·         CRC 3.1110(a) requires a notice of motion to include the “grounds for issuance of the order” sought.  Defendant’s notice of motion does not include any legal grounds for issuance of the order sought. 

·         CRC 3.1113(b) provides that a memorandum in support of a motion must contain “…a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”  Defendant’s memorandum cites Evidence Code §662 to support the position that her name on title creates a presumption that she is the owner of the full beneficial title.  Defendant fails, however, to cite any authority for the position that this entitles her to seek the order she seeks by way of this motion.  Additionally, Defendant cites McNulty v. Copp (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 697 to support the position that ejectment is the correct remedy under the circumstances.  In McNulty, the plaintiff had filed a successfully prosecuted a former action for ejectment, and the issue was whether that judgment was res judicata as to a future action for damages.  While not discussed at length in the case, it appears clear that the complaint had sounded in ejectment, and had been pursued to conclusion either by way of a summary judgment motion, trial, or other dispositive motion.  Defendant herein has not filed an action for ejectment and has not filed a dispositive motion that is recognized by any statutory or case law-based authority.

·         This motion appears to be a disguised motion for summary judgment, but lacks any of the documentation required for such a motion.

·         The motion is supported only by the Declaration of Counsel, who lacks personal knowledge concerning the facts relating to the history of ownership of the subject property. 

·         The motion includes an exhibit.  There is no declaration authenticating the evidence in the list.  Evidence Code §§1400, 1410.  Pursuant to Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4^th 486, 526, all documents to be considered on summary judgment must be authenticated.  See also Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4^th 830, 855. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply to the opposition.  The motion is denied due to failure to meet the moving burden, regardless of the merits of the positions advanced in the opposition and reply. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.