Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV09355, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09355    Hearing Date: September 13, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 13, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant AmWest Funding Corp., joined by Defendant Adnan Mohamed Aljojo

Responding Party: Plaintiff Nadia Kamel Salem

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED.

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 April 21, 2022, Plaintiff sued Defendants for cancellation of instruments. Plaintiff is Defendant Aljojo’s mother. Plaintiff alleges Defendant recorded a fraudulent deed transferring Plaintiff’s real property to Defendant.

EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS

“In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion.” (CCP § 437c(q).) Defendant’s objections to the declaration of Plaintiff are OVERRULED.

ANALYSIS

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Trial judges are required “to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant has met that burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.)  To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce “substantial responsive evidence.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Defendant AmWest Funding Corp. moves for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for cancellation of instruments on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, equitable estoppel, and the doctrine of laches.

Defendant argues the three-year statute of limitations for fraud should apply because Plaintiff alleges Defendant Aljojo engaged in fraud by forging a quitclaim deed to himself. Plaintiff asserts the five-year statute of limitations for cancellation of instruments should apply because the gravamen of the action is for non-delivery. The Court finds that the three-year statute of limitations for fraud applies here. (See Zakaessian v. Zakessian (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 721, 725.) Plaintiff’s allegations are predicated on Aljojo misrepresenting the contents of documents to induce her to sign them. These allegations amount to fraudulent conduct.

Plaintiff also alleges delayed discovery, tolling the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff knew or should have known of the fraud by July 31, 2017 when she learned that Defendant Aljojo filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff’s family. (UMF 6-10.) Defendant also presents a September 2017 letter purportedly from Plaintiff’s counsel requesting Defendant Aljojo transfer title back to Plaintiff. (UMF 9.) Plaintiff filed this action on April 21, 2022. In opposition, Plaintiff represents that she did not learn of the existence of the quitclaim deed until 2021. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claim.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s claim fails because Plaintiff’s negligence allowed the fraud to occur. Plaintiff disputes this, arguing that she was not negligent, and it was not unreasonable for Plaintiff to place trust in her son. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.