Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00729, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00729    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/1/24

Case #24CHCV00729

 

DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer & Motion to Strike filed on 6/20/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Mayra Lisbeth Baldwin and Kirby Baldwin

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Antonia Escobedo and Jose Canton

NOTICE: ok

 

It is not clear whether the demurrer is to the entire First Amended Complaint or to the 1st – 4th causes of action:

            1.  Quiet Title – Resulting Trust

            2.  Quiet Title – Constructive Trust

            3.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

            4.  Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

            5.  Declaratory Relief

 

RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order striking the prayers for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint.

 

RULING: The demurrer is overruled, in part, and sustained with 30 days leave to amend, in part.  The motion to strike is denied. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the purchase of real property commonly known as 522 Harps Street in San Fernando, California (the Property).  Plaintiffs Antonia Escobedo and Jose Canton (Plaintiffs) allege that Defendants Mayra Lisbeth Baldwin and Kirby Baldwin (Defendants) orally agreed to take “bare legal title” to the Property in their name and were on the mortgage only to assist Plaintiffs.

 

Plaintiffs contend that they made the down payment, mortgage payments, property tax payments and homeowners’ insurance payments for the Property, not Defendants.  Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they have been in sole possession of the Property and Defendants never acted as “landlords” until the relationship between the parties broke down and Defendants filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiffs which is now pending (24CHUD00381).

 

As a result, on 3/6/24, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants.  On 4/17/24, Plaintiffs filed the subject First Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Quiet Title – Resulting Trust; (2) Quiet Title – Constructive Trust; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

(4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and (5) Declaratory Relief.  After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendants had with the First Amended Complaint, on 6/20/24, Defendants filed and served the instant demurrer and motion to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs have opposed the demurrer and motion to strike.  Replies to the oppositions have not been filed.    

 

ANALYSIS

 

Procedural Defects in Moving Papers

 

First, it is not clear which causes of action Defendants intended to challenge by way of this demurrer.  The notice of demurrer states: “Defendant will and hereby will move the Court the Court to sustain its demurrer against Plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth causes [of action] for Quiet Title, Constructive Trust, Quiet Title, Resulting Trust, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Declaratory Relief because they fail to state facts to support a claim and that two of the causes of action are uncertain.”  (See Notice of Demurrer,  p.1:21-25).  The declaratory relief cause of action is the 5th cause of action.  The demurrer document addresses only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th causes of action as does the memorandum of points and authorities.  (See Demurrer, p.1:1-19 (pdf p.3); Memorandum of Points & Authorities (P&As), generally).

 

Second, it is not clear what portions of the First Amended Complaint Defendants seek to have stricken as Defendants do not quote any portions or cite any paragraphs in their entirety as required.  See CRC 3.1322(a).  Rather, Defendants merely state that they seek to have the Court “strike the prayers [plural] for punitive damages from First Amended Complaint.”  (See Motion to Strike, p.1:20-21).  

 

1st cause of action – Quiet Title – Resulting Trust

 

It has been held that “[w]hen a transfer of real property is made to one person, and the consideration therefor is paid by and for another, a trust is presumed to result in favor of the person by and for whom such payment is made.”  In Re Marriage of Ruelas (2007) 154 CA4th 339, 342; accord Johnson (1987) 192 CA3d 551, 555-56, fn.1.  A resulting trust may exist for real property even without a written agreement.  See Martin (1983) 145 CA3d 228; Gerstner (1949) 91 CA2d 123; Sadugor (1962) 199 CA2d 477; Gammill (1951) 104 CA2d 185.

 

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for quiet title based on a resulting trust.

 

2nd cause of action – Quiet Title – Constructive Trust

 

Plaintiffs merely argue that this cause of action is uncertain.  (See Demurrer, Ps&As, p.6:11-p.7:9).  The  elements necessary to impose a constructive trust are: (1) the existence of a res (property), (2) the right of the complaining party to that res and (3) some wrongful acquisition or detention of the res by another party.  See PCO, Inc. (2007) 150 CA4th 384.  Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state the cause of action.  Additionally, the cause of action is sufficiently certain for Defendants to respond. 

 

3rd cause of action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

With regard to this cause of action, Defendants merely cite authority for the proposition that there can be no recovery on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress “for mere profanity, obscenity, or abuse without circumstances of aggravation, or for insults, indignities or threats which are considered to amount to nothing more than mere annoyances” and then conclude that “Plaintiffs need more” to support their cause of action.  (See Demurrer, Ps&As, p.6:3-9 citing Yurick (1989) 209 CA3d 1116, 1128). 

 

Plaintiffs have failed to adequately apply the law cited to the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint.  See CRC 3.1113(b).  When the First Amended Complaint is read as a whole, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support their claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

 

4th cause of action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but rather the tort of negligence requiring the elements of duty, breach, causation and damages.  See Marlene F. (1989) 48 C3d 583, 588.  Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts to support the elements of this negligence-based claim nor have Plaintiffs adequately addressed these deficiencies in the opposition.  Plaintiffs cite no authority to support their theory that former friends owe one another some sort of duty of care.  (See Opposition, p.5:26-28).  It is also not clear whether Plaintiffs are basing the claim on a direct victim theory or bystander theory.    

 

5th cause of action – Declaratory Relief

 

Defendants do not address this cause of action in the memorandum of points and authorities which support the demurrer. 

 

Motion to Strike

 

As noted above, it is not clear what portions of the First Amended Complaint Defendants seek to have stricken.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The demurrer is overruled as to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th causes of action.  The demurrer is sustained as to the 4th cause of action.  Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and since this is the first time Plaintiffs’ pleading is before the Court, Plaintiffs are given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in their 4th cause of action. 

 

The motion to strike is denied. 

 

A Second Amended Complaint is due within 30 days.