Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV04470, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV04470    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/12/25

Case #24CHCV04470

 

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer filed on 3/19/25.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ryan Parcells

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Glenn Evangelist

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the entire complaint:

            1.  Conversion

            2.  Quiet Title

            3.  Cancellation of Grant Deed

            4.  Cancellation of Trust

            5.  Cancellation of Will

            6.  Elder Abuse

            7.  Notary Violations

            8.  Negligent Supervision       

            9.  Declaratory Relief

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of the transfer of Elaine Evangelist aka Elaine Voyson’s (Decedent) real property located at 10022 Burnet Avenue, Mission Hills California 91345 to Defendant Ryan Parcells (Parcells) upon Decedent’s death.  Plaintiff Glenn Evangelist (Plaintiff) is Decedent’s brother. 

 

Plaintiff alleges that Parcells, an employee of U.S. Bank, took advantage and isolated Decedent resulting in the creation of a fraudulent trust of which Parcells was the trustee, a fraudulent last will and testament and other allegedly fraudulent documents.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant Rene Daniel Amaya (Amaya), also an employee of U.S. Bank, notarized the fraudulent documents.  Decedent died on 10/20/24.

 

On 12/4/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Parcells, U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) and Amaya alleging causes of action for: (1) Conversion; (2) Quiet Title; (3)  Cancellation of Grant Deed; (4) Cancellation of Trust; (5) Cancellation of Will; (6) Elder Abuse; (7) Notary Violations; (8) Negligent Supervision and (9) Declaratory Relief.  On 2/26/25, Amaya, representing himself, answered the complaint and on 4/9/25 U.S. Bank answered the complaint.  On 3/19/25, after Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to his meet and confer efforts, Parcells filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire complaint.   

 

Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the demurrer. 

 

ANALYSIS

  

In the memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the instant demurrer, Parcells merely sets forth various laws and authorities without applying them to the facts and allegations in this case.  See CRC 3.1113(b).  Some of the laws and authorities cited do not even apply to a demurrer.  For example, Parcells cites CCP 1281 – 1281.96 regarding arbitration. 

 

As such, Parcells has failed to meet his burden as the moving party on the demurrer.   

 

CONCLUSION

 

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





Website by Triangulus