I. BACKGROUND 

A. The Complaint 

On May 31, 2022, plaintiff SallyAnne Payton, individually and as Trustee of the Monteith Drive Trust dated 10/08/1999 (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Joseph B. Griffith (“Griffith”); Jack Shut; All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, Easement, or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s Title, Claim or rights, or Any Cloud on Plaintiff’s Title; Does 1 to 10; and Does 11 to 20 concerning the title of the properly commonly known as 5957 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90003 (“the Property”). The FAC alleges in pertinent part the following. 

In terms of the chain of title, the Property was purchased by Plaintiff’s parents, Nolan H. Payton and Georgia W. Payton. (FAC ¶6; Exh. 1.) The Property was transferred from Nolan H. Payton and Georgia W. Payton to Nolan H. Payton and Georgia W. Payton as Trustees of the Monteith Drive Trust dated 10/08/1999 (“the Trust”). (FAC ¶ 7; Exh. 2.) Nolan H. Payton passed away, and an Affidavit Death of Trustee was recorded. (FAC ¶ 8; Exh. 3.) On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff, as Trustee of the Trust, granted the property to Plaintiff and defendant Griffith, each with an undivided 50% interest as tenants in common. (FAC ¶ 9; Exh. 4.) On September 23, 2021, a Deed of Trust securing payment of $350,000 (“Shut Loan”) to defendant Jack Shut was recorded. (FAC ¶ 10; Exh. 5.) On September 24, 2021, a grant deed was recorded to transfer Plaintiff’s 50% interest to defendant Griffith, thus providing Griffith sole ownership of the Property. (FAC ¶ 11; Exh. 6.) 

In August 2021, Plaintiff alleges she was deceived by Griffith, who would provide services to repair gas lines and other repairs as a licensed plumber. The consequence of the deception were the transactions resulting in the transfer of 50% of the property to Griffith (FAC Exh. 4), the Shut Loan (FAC Exh. 5), and the last deed transferring Plaintiff’s remaining 50% to Griffith (FAC Exh. 6). Griffith represented to Plaintiff that she would continue to own the property, and that he would assist Plaintiff to sell the property for a higher price. Plaintiff alleges all defendants conspired with other persons, including Tammy Williams, Angela Dowell, and Sullivan Garrett, to deceive Plaintiff regarding the transaction and to commit financial elder abuse against Plaintiff.  (FAC ¶ 12.) Plaintiff discovered the false representations and that Griffith was the sole owner of the Property in February 2022, and learned that Griffith received approximately $156,767.02 from the Shut Loan. (FAC ¶ 13.) 

The FAC sets forth eight causes of action for (1) Fraud, (2) Financial Elder Abuse, (3) Quiet Title, (4) Cancellation of Deeds, (5) Declaratory Relief, (6) False Promise, 97) Constructive Fraud, and (8) Negligent Misrepresentation against all defendants. 

B. Relevant Procedural History 

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the original complaint. 

On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lis Pendens. 

On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC. 

On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed defendant Jack Shut. 

On October 11, 2024, Griffith filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 

On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. 

On October 15, 2024, Griffith filed a reply. 

On October 15, 2024, the Court granted Griffith’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to October 22, 2024. 

II. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

“Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (CCP § 439(a).) 

Griffith’s counsel declares that on September 30, 2024, he emailed Plaintiff’s counsel asking if he would amend the complaint. (Hahn Decl. ¶ 4.) On the same day, Plaintiff’s counsel responded he would not amend the complaint. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

The parties did not communicate in person, by telephone, or video conference as pursuant to section 439(a), nor does it appear that the parties meaningfully discussed the contents of the motion. Nonetheless, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (CCP § 439(a)(4).) 

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”¿(Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 [Citations].)¿ The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¿(Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).) 

III. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Griffith requests the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Complaint, (2) the Verified FAC, and (3) the Request for Dismissal on all causes of action against Defendant Jack Shut only. 

Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of the Notice of Pendency of Action filed on March 9, 2022. 

The requests are granted. (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d).) 

IV. DISCUSSION 

Griffith argues defendant Jack Shut must be named as a party to this action because he has an adverse claim to the title of the Property pursuant to the recorded Deed of Trust.  

In opposition, Plaintiff contends she recognized Jack Shut as a bona fide encumbrancer and dismissed him from the action. Plaintiff asserts that any judgment does not affect the Deed of Trust for the loan secured against the property, and that the conditions of CCP § 764.045 are satisfied such that Jack Shut is not an indispensable party to the action. 

In reply, Griffith reasserts similar arguments and does not address CCP § 764.045. 

CCP § 764.045 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Except to the extent provided in Section 1908, the judgment does not affect a claim in the property or part thereof of any person who was not a party to the action if any of the following conditions is satisfied: (a) The claim was of record at the time the lis pendens was filed or, if none was filed, at the time the judgment was recorded.” 

The Court finds the conditions of CCP § 764.045 to be satisfied. Here, Jack Shut’s lien was secured by a Deed of Trust filed on September 23, 2021. (FAC Exh. 5.) Further, the lis pendens was filed on March 9, 2022. Because the Shut Loan was on record at the time the lis pendens was filed, any judgment affecting title of the property in this action would not affect Jack Shut’s lien. Because Jack Shut’s Deed of Trust has no effect on the parties’ claim of ownership to the Property, Griffith’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore denied. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Griffith is DENIED.