Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2020-01143113, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendants Villa Real Estate and Steve High
2. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendants Vincent Cortes, Jr., Michele Cortes, and Bank of the West

Motion No. 1:

Defendants Villa Real Estate and Steve High’s (collectively, the VRE defendants) motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

The only claim alleged against the VRE defendants in the third amended complaint is the fifth cause of action for interference with contract. This claim is based on the VRE defendants’ alleged conduct in inducing defendant Nancy Goetz Tafoya (Tafoya) to breach the residential purchase agreement between plaintiff Medici Partners, LLC (plaintiff) and Tafoya. (See TAC ¶¶ 54-57.)

Tafoya has since successfully moved for summary judgment on the third amended complaint, including on plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract/the subject residential purchase agreement, and judgment has been entered in favor of Tafoya and against plaintiff accordingly as of 5/20/22. (VRE Defs. RJN at Ex. 1.)

Since plaintiff will not be able to establish Tafoya breached the subject contract, plaintiff will not be able to establish that the VRE defendants induced her into doing so, and the cause of action for interference with contract necessarily fails. (See Reeves v. Hanlon (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1140, 1148 [interference with contract, elements].) 

The VRE defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Motion No. 2:

Defendants Vincent Cortes, Jr., Michele Cortes, and Bank of the West’s (collectively, the Cortes defendants) motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

The third amended complaint alleges the second cause of action for cancellation of grant deed, the third cause of action for cancellation of deed of trust, and the fourth cause of action for specific performance against the Cortes defendants. All three claims are based on Tafoya’s alleged breach of the residential purchase agreement between plaintiff and Tafoya. Without such a breach by Tafoya, there is no basis for cancelling any of the instruments at issue or requiring specific performance of the residential purchase agreement. (See TAC ¶¶ 33-51.)

As noted above, Tafoya has since successfully moved for summary judgment on the third amended complaint, including on plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract/the subject residential purchase agreement, and judgment has been entered in favor of Tafoya and against plaintiff accordingly as of 5/20/22. (Cortes Defs. RJN at Ex. A.)

As such, plaintiff will not be able to establish the factual predicate necessary for any of her claims against the Cortes defendants, and all of those claims now fail. (See U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Naifeh (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 767, 778 [cancellation of instruments, elements]; Darbun Enterprises, Inc. v. San Fernando Community Hospital (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 399, 409, fn. 5 [specific performance, elements]; see also Civ. Code, § 3395 [specific performance against subsequent purchaser/encumbrancer].)

The Cortes defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Moving parties shall give notice.