Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV37454, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37454    Hearing Date: October 25, 2023    Dept: 34

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.          BACKGROUND

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff Royal United Group, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendants The Testate and Intestate Successors of Ernest Brown; The Testate and Intestate Successors of Erline Brown; and All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in this Complaint Adverse to the Plaintiff’s Title, or Any Cloud on Plaintiff’s Title Thereto. The causes of action are for quiet title, adverse possession, and declaratory relief.

On May 17, 2023, the Court issued its Order for Publication regarding All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in this Complaint Adverse to the Plaintiff’s Title, or Any Cloud on Plaintiff’s Title Thereto.

On May 18, 2023, the Court issued its Order for Publication regarding The Testate and Intestate Successors of Erline Brown.

On May 19, 2023, the Court issued its Order for Publication regarding The Testate and Intestate Successors of Ernest Brown.

        On August 28, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Defendants.

        On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed:

(1)       Judicial Council Form CIV-100, Request for Court Judgment, for each Defendant;

(2)       Judicial Council Form CIV-110, Request for Dismissal;

(3)       Amended Request for Judicial Notice;

(4)       Brief Case Summary;

(5)       Declaration of Courtney F. Writer;

(6)       Declaration of John Hebda;

(7)       Declaration of Sirdar Dost Durani;

(8)       Exhibit List;

(9)       Witness List; and

(10)    Proposed Judgment.

On October 18, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Does 1 through 100 from the Complaint.

II.       ANALYSIS

Plaintiff requests entry of default judgment on its cause of action for quiet title. However, the Court cannot enter default judgment on a cause of action to quiet title. Instead, the Court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter, where all parties may participate.

For a cause of action to quiet title,

“[t]he court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff’s title against the claims of all the defendants. The court shall not enter judgment by default but shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and hear such evidence as may be offered respecting the claims of any of the defendants, other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in the complaint. The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010.)

“[W]e conclude¿a quiet title judgment requires a hearing in open court. Although section 764.010 does not mandate oral argument—and we do not hold oral argument is necessary, though it may be helpful—the statute requires examining plaintiff's title and hearing defendant's evidence ‘in all cases.’ Default judgment, as we have discussed, seems not to be an option for quiet title cases.” (Harbor Vista, LLC v. HSBC Mortgage Servs. Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1507.)

        Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. An in-court prove-up is scheduled for November ____, 2023.