Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00251, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22LBCV00251 Hearing Date: September 15, 2022 Dept: S27
Plaintiff, Jose A. Perez filed this
action against Defendants, Anel Mejia, Martina Valderrama, and all persons
claiming rights in the subject property.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on 6/03/22. Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of
action for fraud, quiet title, declaratory relief, and partition.
The crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is
that he was incarcerated in 2018, and while he was incarcerated, the mother of
his children, Mejia, convinced him to change title into her name with the
promise that she would annul the document once he was released. Plaintiff alleges he owned the subject
property with Valderrama, who is the mother of Mejia.
Plaintiff alleges he signed a quitclaim
deed on 5/14/18, pursuant to which Mejia and Valderrama became the owners of
the property. He alleges he was released
in June of 2018, but Mejia denied him access to his home upon his release.
a. Legal
Standard on Demurrer
A demurrer is a pleading used to
test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not
fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to
challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on
the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true,
however improbable they may be.
A demurrer can be used only to
challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from
matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan 39
Cal.3d 311 (1985). No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no
“speaking demurrers”). A demurrer is brought under CCP § 430.10 [grounds], §
430.30 [as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be
taken], and § 430.50(a) [can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of
action within]. Specifically, a demurrer
may be brought per CCP § 430.10(e) if insufficient facts are stated to support
the cause of action asserted. Per CCP
§430.10(a) a demurrer may be brought where the court has no jurisdiction of the
subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Furthermore, demurrer for uncertainty will be
sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot
reasonably respond. CCP §
430.10(f).
However, in construing the
allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that
may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. Financial
Corporation of America v. Wilburn, 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769 (1987). And, if the
facts pled in the complaint are inconsistent with facts which are incorporated
by reference from exhibits attached to the complaint, the facts in the
incorporated exhibits control. Further, irrespective of the name or label given
to a cause of action by the plaintiff, a general demurrer must be overruled if
the facts as pled in the body of the complaint state some valid claim for
relief. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (CCP
§ 92(c).)
Leave to amend must be allowed
where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. Goodman v.
Kennedy, 18 Cal.3d 335, 348 (1976). The burden is on the complainant to show
the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)
Finally, CCP section 430.41
requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the
demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party
who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of
determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the
objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (CCP § 430.41(a).) The parties are to
meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is
due. (CCP § 430.41(a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve
a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (CCP § 430.41(a)(3).)
b. Meet
and Confer
Defense Counsel did not provide a
meet and confer declaration with the demurrer.
The Court understands that Plaintiff is self-represented. This does not, however, excuse the obligation
to meet and confer prior to filing the demurrer.
The hearing on the demurrer is
continued to 10/31/22, the date on which the Court already has a Case
Management Conference scheduled in this action.
Defense Counsel must initiate meet and confer communications
forthwith. The parties must discuss all
issues presented by way of demurrer in an attempt to resolve them without the
need for a hearing. If the parties are
unable to resolve their issues, they must file opposition and reply at least nine
and five court days, respectively, prior to the continued hearing date.
Defendants are 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 the parties
do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.