Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20CMCV00229, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 20CMCV00229 Hearing Date: September 19, 2022 Dept: A
20CMCV00229
PAGADUAN V. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.
Monday,
September 19, 2022, 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
CONTINUING THE HEARING ON
I.
BACKGROUND
The First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that that on July 8, 2007, Plaintiff, Shelby Pagaduan
(“Pagaduan” or “Plaintiff”) contracted with Defendant, Sharon Grospe De Guzman
(“Sharon”) to jointly acquire real property in Carson located at 561 E. 213th
Street in Carson, in which each party holds a 50 percent interest. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant, Edward De Guzman (“Edward” or “Cross-Complainant”),
claims a marital interest in the property. Edward and Sharon are undergoing dissolution
proceedings. In August of 2014, Sharon agreed to buy out Plaintiff’s interest but
later abandoned the agreement. Plaintiff alleges the parties are unable to
jointly manage the real property. The FAC alleges claims for partition and
declaratory relief and to quiet title.
On August 16,
2022, Defendant Edward filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) against
Pagaduan and Sharon alleging that Pagaduan relinquished her interest in the
real property pursuant to her buyout agreement with Sharon. Edward alleges that
he and Sharon own the real property pursuant to a 2020 dissolution judgment. Cross-Defendants
are allegedly attempting to undo the family law judgment. The FAXC alleges 13
causes of action arising from Cross-Defendants’ alleged breach of the 2014
buyout agreement and Sharon’s breach of the 2020 marital settlement agreement
(“MSA”), fraud, and conversion of the real property.
II.
DISCUSSION
The court’s file reflects that on
July 26, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part, Pagaduan’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleading as to the cross-complaint with leave to amend.
While the California Rules of Court permits 10 days leave to amend after a
demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, the Cross-Complainant has 30 days to
file an amended complaint after a motion for judgment on the pleading is
granted with leave to amend. Code Civ. Proc., § 438(h)(2). Accordingly, the
FAXC filed on August 16, 2022, was timely filed.
The court previously took notice
of an existing judgment entered on April 22, 2020, in a dissolution action
between Cross-Complainant and Sharon bearing Case No. 18CMFL00457 Edward De
Guzman v. Sharon Grospe-DeGuzman. RJN filed 7/20/22 ISO Pagaduan’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleading. That judgment identified as a community asset the
residence located at 561 E. 213th street, which is the same
residential real property at issue here. Id., 9:2-8. The Family Court
awarded to Cross-Complainant (Husband) all interest in that residence. Id.,
13:18-24.
The FAXC alleges that the marital
settlement agreement (“MSA”) on which the Family Court entered judgment, was
based on Sharon’s disclosures made in the Family Court that Sharon would buyout
Pagaduan’s interest in the property pursuant to the 2014 Buyout Agreement at
issue here. FAXC 29-30. However, Pagaduan filed this action against Sharon and
Cross-Complainant for partition and sale of the same property. FAC filed
12/21/20.
The bulk of the claims asserted in
this FAXC are asserted against Sharon because of statements and disclosures she
allegedly made in the dissolution action and on which Cross-Complainant relied
when he signed the MSA that was subsequently entered into judgment. The
judgment provides for remedies for any parties’ breach of warranty as to
liabilities not disclosed in the MSA that affect the marital assets or
liabilities. RJN, 11:1-5. The agreement obligated the warrantor to indemnify
the other for liabilities on the undisclosed obligation. RJN, 11:18-26.
However, Pagaduan now represents
that on October 1, 2020, Commissioner Duron of the Family Court ordered the
dissolution action “consolidated and joined” with this civil matter and with
the dissolution action being the lead case. Opp. 5: 2-7. The court’s file does
not reflect that Department 1 ordered this case related, consolidated, and
reassigned to the Family Court as required by local rules.
"(2) Where the cases listed in a Notice
of Related Cases contains a probate or family law case, Department 1 shall
determine whether the cases shall be ordered related and, if so, to which
department they shall be assigned if the cases are all pending in the Central
District or pending in two different districts. If the cases are all pending in
one district that is other than the Central District, the Supervising Judge of
that district shall determine whether the cases shall be ordered related and,
if so, to which department they shall be assigned. In addition to filing the
Notice of Related Cases in the departments of all pending cases, a copy of the
Notice of Related Cases must be filed in Department 1 for matters to be
determined in Department 1, and in the courtroom of the Supervising Judge of a
district if the matter is to be determined by the Supervising Judge of that
district; … .” CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT Rule 3.3.
Additionally,
a party has a continuing duty to provide notice “[w]henever a party in a civil
action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another
action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any
state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of
Related Case." CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.300.
The party must serve and file a notice of related cases. Id.
III.
CONCLUSION
Given the foregoing procedural issues,
the court continues the hearing on this demurrer to November 14, 2022, at 8:30
a.m. in Department A of the Compton courthouse until the parties comply with
their obligations under the local rules and the California Rules of Court with
respect to related cases. Plaintiff is ordered to immediately file a Notice of
Related Cases in the dissolution action, this action, and in Department 1 to
determine the issue of whether these cases should be related, consolidated, and/or reassigned.