Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV25522, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25522    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 11, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Adelaida Elizabeth Ganuza, Mirna Banos, and Wilson Mejia

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Neftaly Maldonado and Sharon Scarlett Monzon

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE RULING.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On March 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Neftaly Maldonado and Sharon Scarlett Monzon filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants Adelaida Elizabeth Ganuza, Mirna Banos, Wilson Mejia, and Mulhearn Realtors, Inc., asserting causes of action for fraud, quiet title, unjust enrichment, elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs into transferring real property to Defendants.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

            Defendants demur to the first and sixth causes of action.

A. First Cause of Action for Fraud

            The elements of fraud are: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.) In California, fraud, including negligent misrepresentation, must be pled with specificity. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) “The particularity demands that a plaintiff plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469.)  

            Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege fraud with the requisite specificity. Plaintiffs allege that Monzon inherited properties from Jamie Maldonado, Monzon’s husband and Maldonado’s brother. Plaintiff Monzon wished to transfer the properties to Maldonado. On May 17, 2019, Defendants Ganuza and Banos visted Monzon, presenting documents that would transfer the properties to Maldonado. Defendants subsequently altered the documents to create a transfer of one of the properties to Defendant Mejia as a bona fide gift. Unaware of the alterations, Monzon signed the documents. Around the same time, Defendants Ganuza and Banos fraudulently induced Maldonado into transferring the remaining properties to Ganuza in joint tenancy. This is sufficiently specific to state a cause of action for fraud.

            The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

B. Sixth Cause of Action for Elder Abuse

Financial elder abuse occurs when a person takes the property of an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud or by undue influence. (See Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30(a).) A person is deemed to have taken the property when he or she has deprived an elder of any property right. (See id. § 15610.30(c).) Although bad faith or intent to defraud is no longer required, wrongful use of property must still be alleged. (Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 527-28.) “A person . . . shall be deemed to have taken . . . property for a wrongful use if . . . the person  . . . takes  . . . the property and the person . . . knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder . . . .” (Id. § 15610.30(b).) 

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a cause of action for elder abuse. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged fraud. These allegations also are adequate to plead elder abuse.

The demurrer to the sixth cause of action is OVERRULED.