Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV34169, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34169    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:             April 23, 2024

Moving Party:             Defendant Sergio Rodriguez Vasquez

Responding Party:      None

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

The court GRANTS Defendant Sergio Rodriguez Vasquez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Background

Plaintiff Norma Angelica Farias (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on October 24, 2022 against Defendant Sergio Rodriguez Vasquez (“Defendant”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Unjust Enrichment; (2) Negligent/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (3) Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On January 13, 1991, Defendant and Silveria Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) married. (Compl. ¶ 11.) At the time of the marriage, Rodriguez had three daughters that included Plaintiff, Ana Bella Farias, and Juliana Farias. (Id. at ¶ 12.) On January 5, 2010, Rodriguez purchased the real property known as 1821 E. Gage Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90001 as her sole and separate property. (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. A.) It is further alleged that it was Rodriguez’s intent that the subject property would remain her sole and separate property and would be transferred to her three daughters born prior to her marriage with Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 14.) On March 1, 2021, Rodriguez died without a will. (Id. at ¶ 15.) It is alleged that Rodriguez intended to gift the subject property to her three daughters, who were born prior to her marriage to Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 17.) On December 8, 2021, Defendant filed a spousal property petition in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court that was assigned case number 21STPB11643 and failed to represent to the probate court of Rodriguez’s aforementioned intent. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from selling the subject property, and if she does, then one-half of the proceeds should be transferred to the three surviving daughters. (Id. at ¶ 20.)

On December 7, 2022, Defendant filed his answer to the complaint.

By way of stipulation, Defendant filed his first amended answer to the complaint on July 7, 2023.

On March 25, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings.

As of April 18, 2024, no opposition has been filed to the instant motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 438 states, in relevant part:  “(b)(1) A party may move for judgment on the pleadings. . . . (c)(1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds: . . . . (B)  If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist: (i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.  (ii)  The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” 

A motion for judgment on the pleadings “has the purpose and effect of a general demurrer.”  (Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146 (citation omitted).)  “[T]he trial court generally confines itself to the complaint and accepts as true all material facts alleged therein.  As appropriate, however, it may extend its consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice.  In this, it performs essentially the same task that it would undertake in ruling on a general demurrer.”  (Id. (citations omitted).) 

A party moving for judgment on the pleadings must meet and confer in person or telephonically with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to determine if an agreement can be reached regarding the claims raised in the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 439, subd. (a).)  The moving party must file a declaration detailing the meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 439, subd. (a)(3).) 

Judicial Notice

            Defendant requests the court to take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Defendant’s Spousal Property Petition filed on December 8, 2021 in case no. 21STPB11643; (2) the Notice of Hearing-Decedent’s Estate or Trust file on January 7, 2022 in case no. 21STPB11643; (3) Plaintiff’s Request for Continuance for the Purpose of Making a Written Response or Objection to Spousal Property Petition filed on February 18, 2022 in case no. 21STPB11643; (4) the February 18, 2022 Minute Order issued by Judgment Michael Small in case no. 21STPB11643; (5) the Spousal or Domestic Partner Property Order signed by Judge Michael Small on March 4, 2022 in case no. 21STPB11643; (6) a copy of the probate court’s docket information relating to case no. 21STPB11643; and (7) the certified grant deed recorded by the Los Angeles Recorder’s Office on March 23, 2022.

The court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(c) and (d).           

Discussion

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the following grounds: (1) the complaint is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel; (2) the complaint is barred by the statute of frauds; and (3) all three causes of action have been insufficiently alleged.

As to the first argument, Defendant contends that the complaint is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel because each cause of action concerns the issue of ownership in the subject property and the probate court in case no. 21STPB11643 confirmed that the subject property was community property and belonged to Defendant upon Rodriguez’s passing. (Motion at pp. 7-8.) The court agrees.

Collateral estoppel prevents re-litigation when the following factors are met: (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 547, 556.) An individual in privity with a party to the prior proceeding is one who is “directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make defense, or to control the proceeding, and to appeal from the judgment.” (Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 811.) Within the context of probate proceedings, “judgment is conclusive against ‘the whole world’ and not just the parties to the litigation.” (Heiser v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 276, 278, 278.)

Here, Plaintiff effectively seeks to litigate the issue of who owns the subject property. (See Compl. ¶¶ 14, 17, 24, 29, 32-33; Jaffe v. Carroll (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 53, 57 [“the subject matter of an action and issues involved are determined from the facts alleged rather than from the title of the pleadings. . . .”].) However, this matter was adjudicated by way of Defendant’s Spousal or Domestic Partner Property Petition pursuant to Probate Code § 13650. (See RJN, Exh. 1.)

As to the second element, the issue of whether Defendant owned the subject property was determined on February 18, 2022, and pursuant to Probate Code §13656(a), the probate court determined upon sufficient evidence that the subject property passed to Defendant without further administration. (RJN, Exh. 3.) Moreover, even though the Grant Deed recorded on January 20, 2010 indicates that Rodriguez took title as a married woman as her sole and separate property, this is not dispositive because there is a presumption that property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. (In re Brace (2020) 9 Cal.5th 903; Family Code § 760.) It is only in probate proceedings is there a presumption that the named owner on legal title to property is presumed to be the correct owner of that property, but with any presumption, it is rebuttable. (See Estate of Wall (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 168.) Considering that the probate court examined the evidence before it and concluded that Defendant was the owner of the subject property, there is no reason to disrupt that finding.

With regard to the third element, because the entire purpose of the Spousal or Domestic Partner Property Petition is to determine whether property passes to a surviving spouse and to confirm such ownership, the issue of who owns the subject property was necessarily decided. As to the fourth element, on March 4, 2022, the probate court issued an order declaring that Rodriguez’s one-half interest in the subject property passed to Defendant, and because no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed, this order has become final. (See RJNs, Exh. 5, 6.)

As to the last element, Plaintiff was a party to the probate petition because she was served notice of the hearing on January 4, 2022 and could have submitted an objection or other evidence. (RJN, Exh. 2.) The alternative privity requirement is satisfied as well because Plaintiff was in privity with her mother’s estate and had a direct interest in the subject matter of the probate petition. Furthermore, by being served with notice and attempting to continue the probate proceedings, it is clear that Plaintiff had a right to make a defense or to control the proceedings. (RJN, Exhs. 2, 3.) However, Plaintiff failed to appear at the February 18, 2023 hearing and did not taken any steps to overturn the probate court’s order. (See Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 860, 871 [a party “cannot now take advantage of the fact that [it] avoided its litigation responsibilities and chose not to present evidence at the prior proceeding.”].) Therefore, the court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies in this case and precludes further determination on the issue of ownership in the subject property.

Accordingly, because the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s complaint. In the interest of judicial economy, the court declines to address the remaining arguments addressed by Defendant. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant Sergio Rodriguez Vasquez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

It is so ordered.

Dated: April 23, 2024

_________________________

ROLF M. TREU

Judge of the Superior Court