Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00607, Date: 2024-04-29 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: 22CHCV00607 Hearing Date: April 29, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/29/24
TRIAL DATE: 5/6/24
Case #22CHCV00607
MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Motion filed on 3/26/24.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Robert Goldberg and Kathleen Goldberg, Trustees of the
Robert and Kathleen Goldberg Family Trust dated July 30, 2004
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Anthony
Scearce and Jeannene Scearce
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 8/8/22, Plaintiffs Anthony Scearce and Jeannene
Scearce (the Scearces) filed this action against Defendants Robert Goldberg and
Kathleen Goldberg, Trustees of the Robert and Kathleen Goldberg Family Trust
dated July 30, 2004 (the Goldbergs) alleging one cause of action for quiet
title. In their complaint, the Scearces
allege that they have an easement for ingress and egress over the Goldbergs
property (Access Easement). (See
Complaint ¶¶1-3).
The Scearces allege, based upon information and belief,
that “they have used this easement continuously and openly, with either express
or implied permission of Defendants [the Goldbergs] since they moved into their
property in 1996” which forms the basis for the Scearces claim for an
irrevocable license for express/implied easement. (Complaint, p.3:25 and ¶¶16-17).
On 11/29/22, the Goldbergs answered the Scearces
complaint and filed a cross-complaint against the Scearces for quiet title and
declaratory relief. On 1/13/23, the
Scearces answered the cross-complaint and on 1/30/23, the Scearces filed an
amended answer to the cross-complaint.
After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the
issues the Goldbergs have with the complaint, on 3/26/24, the Goldbergs filed
and served the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking an order
granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Goldbergs and against the
Scearces as to the Scearces’ cause of action to quiet title to a prescriptive
easement over the Goldberg’s property. (See
Lombardi Decl.). The Scearces have
opposed the motion and the Goldbergs have filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
Here, the Goldbergs base their request for judgment on
the pleadings on CCP 438(c)(1)(B)(ii) which provides that a defendant may move
for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the “complaint does not state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (See Motion, p.5:3-6).
The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings
must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which
the court is required to or may take judicial notice. CCP 438(d); Tung (2021) 63 CA5th 734,
758-759. If a motion for judgment on the
pleadings is based on matters the court may judicially notice under Evidence
Code 452 or 453, such matters must be specified in the notice of motion or
supporting points and authorities. CCP
438(d).
A request for judicial notice must be made in a separate
document listing the specific items for which judicial notice is requested and
must comply with CRC 3.1306(c). CRC
3.1113(l). CRC 3.1306(c)
provides:
“A party requesting judicial notice
of material under Evidence
Code sections 452 or 453 must
provide the court and each party with a copy of the material. If the material
is part of a file in the court in which the matter is being heard, the party
must:
(1) Specify in writing the part of
the court file sought to be judicially noticed; and
(2) Either
make arrangements with the clerk to have the file in the courtroom
at the time of the hearing or confirm with the
clerk that the file is electronically accessible to the court.”
The Goldbergs base the instant motion on the Scearces’
Trial Brief which the Goldbergs argue establishes that the Scearces are making
a separate claim for prescriptive and equitable easements. (See Motion, p.5:11-17). Such argument is not based on the face of the
Scearces’ complaint and the Goldbergs have not requested that the court take
judicial notice of the Scearces’ Trial Brief or that it would be proper to do
so under the circumstances.
By way of the instant motion, the Goldbergs are
requesting that the Court adjudicate a claim for prescriptive easement which
does not exist in the Scearces’ operative complaint based on what the Scearce’s
have indicated they intend to argue at trial by way of their Trial Brief. Even if the Goldberg’s had made a proper
request for judicial notice of the Scearces’ Trial Brief, they have not
established that a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the complaint,
which does not include the term prescriptive easement, is the proper vehicle to
challenge the Scearces’ Trial Brief or proposed claims made therein.
In the opposition, the Scearces’ state that “[i]t was not
until the Mandatory Settlement Conference that Plaintiffs [the Scearces]
learned that Goldbergs claimed to have no knowledge of the use of the easement.
It is a question of fact which will need to be determined at the time of trial
what Goldbergs knew about the easement.”
(See Opposition, p.4:5-7).
The Mandatory Settlement Conference took place on 1/12/24. The Scearces fail to explain why they did not
move to amend their complaint to add a claim for prescriptive easement. Nor do they provide any authority which
provides that they can amend their complaint by way of their Trial Brief.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there is no
basis to rule on a claim for prescriptive easement which does not exist in the
Scearce’s complaint.
The Court finds that the Goldbergs have improperly
included an alternative motion in limine to exclude evidence
contradicting permissive use at trial at the end of the instant motion for
judgment on the pleadings. If the
Goldbergs wanted the Court to rule on such a motion, they should have filed a
proper motion in limine on the issue.
CONCLUSION
The motion is denied.