Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00648, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20CHCV00648    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date:  12/3/24                                                             TRIAL DATE: 2/18/25

Case #20CHCV00648

 

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL CROSS-COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer filed on 4/22/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendants Alex Alvarado and Patricia Alvarado

RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainants Michael Meadows and Althea Meadows

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the entire Cross-Complaint:

            1.  Breach of Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners’ Association’s Governing Documents

            2.  Nuisance

            3.  Invasion of Privacy

            4.  Negligence

            5.  Premises Liability

            6.  Trespass

            7.  Assault

            8.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

RULING: The demurrer is overruled.  Answer is due within 20 days.

 

This action arises out of a dispute between neighbors, Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia Alvarado (the Alvarados) and Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea Meadows (the Meadows). 

 

The Alvarados’ operative First Amended Complaint alleges a total of 22 causes of action, some against the Meadows and some against Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners Association (HOA).  On 2/15/24, the Meadows filed their answer to the First Amended Complaint and a cross-complaint against the Alvarados alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners’ Association’s Governing Documents; (2) Nuisance; (3) Invasion of Privacy; (4) Negligence; (5) Premises Liability; (6) Trespass; (7) Assault and (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

 

After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues the Alvarados had with the cross-complaint, on 4/22/24, the Alvarados filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire cross-complaint.  The demurrer was originally scheduled for hearing on 6/14/24.  On 5/29/24, the Alvarados rescheduled the hearing to 12/3/24.  On 11/13/24, the Meadows filed and served an opposition to the demurrer.  The Alvarados have not filed a reply to the opposition to the demurrer. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

CCP 430.10 provides:

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.”

 

The Alvarados’ demurrer to the entire cross-complaint is based “on the grounds that the Meadows failed to file a Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint, as required by California Code Civil Procedure § 428.50, subd. (a) and (c).”  (See Demurrer, p.3:12-15).  Pursuant to CCP 430.10, as set forth above, failure to obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint is not a ground for demurrer.   

 

The proper procedure for challenging the filing of a cross-complaint without leave of court would be a motion to strike on the ground that the pleading was not filed in conformity with the laws of this state.  See CCP 435(b)(1); CCP 436(b).  While the Alvarados have filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint on such grounds, such motion was  filed on 4/18/24 (4 days before the demurrer was filed), was originally scheduled for hearing on 6/7/24 (7 days before the demurrer was originally scheduled for hearing) and was rescheduled by the Alvarados on 5/29/24 to be heard on 12/4/24, the day after the current hearing on this demurrer. 

 

CRC 3.1322(b) provides that “[a] notice of motion to strike must be given within the time allowed to plead, and if a demurrer is interposed, concurrently therewith, and must be noticed for hearing and heard at the same time as the demurrer.” (emphasis added).  The Alvarados provide no explanation for their failure to comply with the foregoing rule.

 

Even if failure to obtain leave of court to file the cross-complaint was a proper ground for demurrer, the Court finds the Alvarados’ argument to be without merit.  When the Alvarados filed their First Amended Complaint, it superseded the original complaint.  See State Compensation Insurance Fund (Onvoi Business Solutions, Inc.) (2010) 184 CA4th 1124, 1130-1131.  As such, when the Meadows answered the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds that they were also entitled to file and serve a cross-complaint against the Meadows at that time.  See CCP 428.10(a); CCP 428.50(a).  The Alvarados will suffer no more prejudice than the Meadows who had to answer the new claims in the First Amended Complaint which was filed more than three years after the filing of the original complaint.  Further, the Alvarados rescheduled the hearing on the demurrer approximately six months after it was originally scheduled for hearing when they could have used that time to conduct any additional discovery needed to defend against the cross-claims.

 

Based on the foregoing, the Alvarados demurrer to the entire cross-complaint is overruled.   

 

The Alvarados also demur to the 1st cause of action in the cross-complaint for Breach of Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners’ Association’s Governing Documents under CCP 430.10(e) and (f) on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and it is uncertain.

 

The opposition to the demurrer argues that the Alvarados’ contention that the Meadows lack standing to enforce the HOA’s governing documents against the Alvarados contradicts Alex Alvarado’s position on his appeal of the HOA’s judgment and the language of the CC&Rs.  (See Opposition, p.5:13-p.6:24).  While it appears that there is truth to these arguments, they cannot be considered on demurrer as they on evidence outside the pleading and of which the Meadows have not requested that the Court take judicial notice.

 

Even without such opposition arguments, the Alvarados have failed to establish that the Meadows’ 1st cause of action fails as a matter of law.      

 

First and foremost, despite the fact that the Alvarados’ First Amended Complaint alleges eight causes of action against the Meadows for breach of the HOA’s governing documents, the Alvarados surprisingly argue that the Meadows lack standing to enforce those same governing documents against them.  (See First Amended Complaint, 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th and 15th causes of action).

 

Additionally, the Davis-Stirling Act supports the Meadows’ standing to pursue their first cause of action.

 

Civil Code 5975 provides, in relevant part:

 

“(a) The covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both.

(b) A governing document other than the declaration may be enforced by the association against an owner of a separate interest or by an owner of a separate interest against the association.”

 

(emphasis added)

 

The Alvarados have not shown that the declaration states that the servitudes may not be enforced by an owner.  As noted above, the Alvarados’ assertion of multiple causes of action against the Meadows for violations of the same governing documents in their First Amended Complaint indicates that such a statement does not exist.  Additionally, the breaches of the governing documents claimed by the Meadows in their cross-complaint are similar to those made by the Alvarados in their First Amended Complaint.  (See First Amended Complaint (FAC), 1st cause of action – Breach of Governing Documents Re: Pool Cleaning Business and Cross-Complaint;  

 FAC - 3rd cause of action – Breach of Governing Documents Re: Dog; FAC – 7th cause of action – Breach of Governing Documents Re: Trash; Cross-Complaint ¶¶55-56, 59).

 

As such, the Alvarados have failed to establish that the Meadows cannot assert their 1st cause of action as a matter of law. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The demurrer is overruled.  Answer is due within 20 days.