Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV22815, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22815 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: 74
22STCV22815 RICHARD LOPEZ vs RAFAEL DAVID MIRANDA
Defendants’
Rafael David Miranda and Rafael David Miranda, Trustee of the Rafael David
Miranda Irrevocable Trust Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
TENTATIVE
RULING: The demurrer is OVERRULED.
Background
On July 14,
2022, Plaintiff Richard Lopez filed this action against Defendants Rafael David Miranda, Individually and as Trustee of Rafael David
Miranda Irrevocable Trust, dated May 21, 2022, and all persons unknown claiming
any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property
described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon
plaintiff’s title thereto. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1)
quiet title; (2) slander of title; and (3) cancellation of instrument related
to real property located at 920 North Eastman Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90063.
Demurrer
On August 23, 2022, Defendant Rafael David Miranda,
individually and as Trustee of the Rafael David Miranda Irrevocable Trust,
filed the instant demurrer to each of the causes of action asserted in the
complaint.
While Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure
section 128.7(a) stating the demurrer is “unsigned,” (Opp. at 4:7-22), the
demurrer filed with the Court is electronically signed by Defendant’s counsel.
Opposition
In opposition, Plaintiff notes Defendant did not
meet and confer, failed to address two of the causes of action, and improperly
relies upon matters not stated in the complaint.
Reply
In reply, Defendant contends the Court entered a
default judgment in a separate action and contends, without authority, that
plaintiff does not have standing and is “not allowed to interfere with an
enforceable and valid Court’s Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release.”
Defendant
improperly requests judicial notice of various documents for the first time in
reply. (American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446,
1453 (“Points raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be
considered, because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an
opportunity to counter the argument.”); Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218
Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (“The general rule of motion practice, which applies
here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.”).) The Court
does not consider Defendant’s reply request for judicial notice.
Moreover,
the Court notes one of the documents relied upon by Defendant, a February 17,
2022 default judgment in BC697314 Miranda v. Contreras, was vacated on
June 13, 2022 as to Defendant Andres Contreras, the only party to the purported
settlement agreement raised by Defendant. Thus, judicial notice of the
existence of the reply documents would not alter the sufficiency of the
complaint.
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Compliance with the Meet and Confer
Requirements
“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter,
the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the
party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of
determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the
objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).) A
demurrer must be accompanied by a “declaration stating either of the following:
(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who
filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an
agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer. (B) That the party
who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and
confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in
good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).)
Defendant’s demurrer is not accompanied by a meet
and confer declaration and Plaintiff’s counsel provides a declaration stating
Defendant’s counsel never attempted to meet and confer as required. (Choi Decl.
¶ 2.)
Demurrer
Standard
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the
complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn
v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers,
courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding,
the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial
notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not
the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the
defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed (Code
Civ.Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70). The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is
whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters,
states a cause of action.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153
Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege
ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the
claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie
(1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A complaint need not allege evidentiary facts
noting plaintiff’s proof. (C.A. v.
William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) A
“demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact
or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or
facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land
Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.)
A
special demurrer to a complaint is appropriate when the grounds of the pleading
are uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f);
Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of
San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) Courts typically disfavor
demurrers based on uncertainty, which the court strictly construes even when
the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14
Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)
If
the demurrer is sustained, plaintiff must prove the possibility of cure by
amendment. (Czajkowski v.
Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 173 (citing Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004)
120 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79).) Leave to amend must be allowed where there is
a reasonable possibility of successfully stating a cause of action. (Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007)
152 Cal.App.4th 86, 92.)
Defendant’s Demurrer is Unsupported and Improperly Relies Upon
Extrinsic Matters
As
noted by Plaintiff, (Opp. at 5:14-21), while Defendant’s demurrer indicates he
demurs to each cause of action asserted in the complaint, the memorandum of
points and authorities only addresses the quiet title cause of action. Pursuant
to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(a), Defendant’s failure to address the
slander of title and cancellation of instrument claims is fatal to his
demurrer: “The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission
that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial
and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.”
Defendant’s reply similarly does not contain any citations to relevant
authority. (See generally Fenton v. City of Delano (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d
400, 410 (“A point totally unsupported by argument and authority may be
rejected by the reviewing court without discussion.”).) The Court separately
notes that Defendant’s demurrer appears to have used an opposition as its
template, inconsistently stating “Defendants’ Demurrer should be overruled in
its entirety,” (Dem. at 10:14), and partially relies upon non-binding federal
case authority. (Dem. at 10:15-11:10.)
As
Defendant acknowledges, “[a] demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the
evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only where the defects
appear on the face of the pleadings or are judicially noticed.” (Dem. at
4:16-19. See SKF Farms, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at
905.) However, Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendant’s demurrer relies
entirely upon matters not alleged in the complaint and Defendant did not
request judicial notice of any documents. Defendant’s sole argument in the
demurrer is that Plaintiff cannot support a claim for quiet title due to a
“Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release” between Defendant and a non-party.
(Dem. at 11:11-12:7.) The complaint makes no reference to this document. (SKF
Farms, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at 905 (“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone
and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.”).)
“In
an ordinary action to quiet title it is sufficient to allege in simple language
that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land and that the
defendant claims an interest therein adverse to him.” (South Shore Land Co.
v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 740.) Plaintiff alleges he is the
owner of real property located at 920 North Eastman Avenue and is in possession
of the property. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant improperly
claims an adverse interest in the property. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 14, 17, 19-20.) The
complaint is properly verified. Nothing further is required to state a cause of
action. (South Shore, supra, 226 Cal.App.2d at 741 (“In the instant case
appellant alleges that she is the owner in fee and in possession of a parcel of
land pertinently described; that respondent claims an interest therein adverse
to her; and that such claim is without right. These allegations are ordinarily
sufficient to state a cause of action to quiet title.”); Code Civ. Proc. §
761.020.)
The
demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.