Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV37515, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37515    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 25, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Claire Mendoza, Jaime Mendoza and Jennifer Mendoza

Responding Party: Plaintiff Julie Strassman, Individually and as Successors-in-Interest to Decedent Harvey Strassman

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

BACKGROUND

                        November 30, 2022, Plaintiff Julie Strassman, Individually and as Successors-in-Interest to Decedent Harvey Strassman sued Defendants Claire Mendoza, Jaime Mendoza and Jennifer Mendoza, asserting 12 causes of action for elder abuse, fraud, tortious interference with inheritance and quiet title. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were caregivers to her father, decedent Harvey Strassman. Plaintiff alleges Defendants wrongfully influenced decedent to transfer his real property to Defendants and stole money from decedent.

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 complaint on the grounds that it should have been brought in probate court, Plaintiff lacks standing, and Plaintiff failed to join necessary parties.

            Defendants assert that this action must be heard in probate court and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter under the Probate Code. Defendants do not cite a specific section of the code. This argument is incorrect. “[E]ven in a county having a formal probate department, a nonprobate department does not lack fundamental jurisdiction over a probate matter. Instead, and as that court held in Dowdall v. Superior Court (1920) 183 Cal. 348, 353, 191 P. 685 (Dowdall), the probate department has “primary” jurisdiction and a nonprobate department “secondary” jurisdiction of probate-related proceedings.” (Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1345.)

            Defendants also assert Plaintiff lacks standing because she has not filed the proper declaration under CCP § 377.32. In opposition, Plaintiff represents that this declaration has been filed.

            Defendants contend Plaintiff failed to join her brother as an indispensable party. But Defendants do not analyze the elements of CCP § 389(a), which defines an indispensable party.

            Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.