Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00251, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22LBCV00251 Hearing Date: October 31, 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. Initial
Note re: Opposition
Opposition to the demurrer was due
on or before 10/18/22. Plaintiff filed
untimely opposition to the demurrer on 10/21/22. The Court has read and considered the opposition
despite its untimely filing, but asks Plaintiff to ensure all documents are
timely filed in the future in this case.
c. Statute
of Limitations
Defendants demur to the complaint, contending
it is barred by the statute of limitations.
The statute of limitations for a fraud claim is three years from the date
the aggrieve party discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should
discover, the fraud that forms the basis of the claim. Defendants argue the alleged fraudulent
statement was made on 5/06/18, and Plaintiff did not file the complaint until
6/03/22, more than three years later.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff
made the false statement in May of 2018, and then alleges that Plaintiff was
release from prison in June of 2018, at which time he went home to meet
Defendant and their children, but they denied him entry to his home. Plaintiff argues, in opposition to the demurrer,
that he did not begin to suspect the document he signed was different from the
document Defendants told him he was signing until mid-2020, when the parties
were involved in family law paternity proceedings. Notably, those proceedings are also detailed
in Plaintiff’s complaint.
A demurrer on the basis of the
statute of limitations cannot be sustained unless the running of the statute
appears “clearly and affirmatively” on the face of the complaint. See Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa
Clara County Bd. Of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42. The Court cannot find, at the pleading stage,
that the complaint shows clearly and affirmatively on its face that the statute
of limitations acts as a bar. The demurrer
on this ground is therefore overruled.
d. Fraud
Against Valderrama
Defendants correctly note that the
first cause of action for fraud fails to plead any facts showing Valderrama, as
opposed to Mejia, made any false or fraudulent statement. Plaintiff does not address this contention in
his opposition to the demurrer. Valderrama’s
demurrer to the fraud cause of action is therefore sustained. Leave to amend is granted if and only if
Plaintiff can allege facts showing Valderrama, as opposed to Mejia, is liable
to him for fraud.
e. Specificity
Defendants argue Plaintiff pled that
Mejia promised him that “we will annul the document,” but Defendants contend
this is insufficient because Plaintiff has not pled that he took steps to try
to have the document annulled and Defendant refused to cooperate. Defendants’ non-cooperation can be inferred from
the allegations of the complaint, and the demurrer on this ground is overruled.
Defendants also argue the exact
facts supporting the fraud cause of action are not pled with specificity. Plaintiff, however, alleges that Mejia visited
him in prison and that was where the false and fraudulent statements were made
(¶16). Plaintiff then goes on to detail
the statements that were made (¶¶17-19).
The demurrer on this ground is also overruled.
f. Quiet
Title as to Valderrama
Defendants argue there are no facts
pled as to Valderrama that would support a quiet title cause of action. Plaintiff, however, alleges that the two
defendants, who are mother and daughter, acted together to ensure title vested
purely in Valderrama and not in Plaintiff, who had previously shared
title. The demurrer is overruled.
g. Imminent
Injury
Defendants demur to the declaratory
relief cause of action, contending no imminent injury is pled. Defendants rely on Sanctity of Human Life
Network v. California Highway Patrol (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 858 to
support their position that imminent injury is a necessary precondition to declaratory
relief. Defendants did not provide a
pinpoint citation to Sanctity of Human Life, and the Court’s key word search
for “imminent injury” in the opinion rendered no results. The demurrer to the declaratory relief cause
of action is therefore overruled.
h. Scope
of Declaratory Relief
Defendants cite Bachis v. State Farm
Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 722 to support their position that an
action for declaratory relief going beyond the seeking of a declaration of the rights
and duties of the parties may be adjudged to be an improper subject of
declaratory relief. Defendants again
fail to provide a pinpoint citation. The
issue in Bachis was whether there was jurisdiction to hear the case; the plaintiff
therein attempted to create municipal court jurisdiction by seeking a
declaration that the defendant owed an amount in excess of the municipal court
jurisdictional limit, and the court of appeals found this to be an improper
attempt to circumvent the superior court’s jurisdiction over the issue.
Defendants failed to show that any
similar situation exists here, and the demurrer is overruled.
i. Partition
Defendants demur to the cause of
action for partition, contending Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the cause
of action because he does not have ownership of the property. Plaintiff, by way of his quiet title cause of
action, seeks a court determination that he DOES have ownership of the
property. If Plaintiff is successful,
then this cause of action will also be properly pled. The demurrer is overruled.
j. Conclusion
Defendant, Valderrama’s demurrer to
the cause of action for fraud is sustained.
The demurrer is otherwise overruled.
If Plaintiff wishes to amend, he must do so within twenty days. Defendants must file a responsive pleading within
the statutory time thereafter. If Plaintiff
does not amend within twenty days, then Defendants must file an answer to the complaint,
with the cause of action for fraud against Valderrama deemed stricken, within
thirty days.
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.