Judge Richard L. Fruin, Case Number: 24STCV11424, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS:
The Court prepares written tentative rulings for contested motions other than Discovery Motions. Usually the Court will not be able to e-mail tentative rulings until 8:30 a.m. on the morning of the motion hearing. If the tentative rulings are available on the day before the scheduled hearing, the Court will e-mail the tentative rulings to counsel. The Court does not read its tentative rulings to attorneys appearing by LACourtConnect. Tentative rulings that are made final at the hearing will be entered in the computer as a separate document filed.

Email will be sent to those counsel remotely appearing on LACourtConnect if signed-in at the time email is sent and/or alternatively will be sent to attorney(s) of record.

Counsel receiving the tentative email are requested to please forward the attached tentative ruling to any party/counsel entitled that is not included in the email.

All recipients are to appear at the hearing for any comments or arguments; parties are not to respond to the email with any comments or argument.

# 14 TENTATIVE RULING 9:15 a.m., Thursday, May 1, 2025

JANE BRAUGH v. ROY DOW, et al. [24STCV11424]

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT ROY DOW’S FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT

BACKGROUND: Quiet Title Action

TIMELINE: Quiet Title re Ownership of Real property

10/2004: Plaintiff Jane Braugh acquires and takes possession of residential property located at 8902 Wheatland Ave., Sun Valley, CA. To qualify for the loan to acquire the Property, Defendant Roy Dow, co-signs the loan. As a result, the Property’s legal title is in the name of Plaintiff and Dow as a joint tenants with the right of survivorship.

11/2004 - 5/2013: Dow pays Plaintiff monthly rent to live on the Property.

5/2014: Dow resumes living in the Property but is not paying rent.

4/24/2018: Plaintiff files suit against Dow in Case No. BC703616 alleging claims for (1) partition; (2) accounting and compensatory adjustments; and (3) injunctive relief re the Wheatland Ave. Property.

5/30/2018: Dow is ousted from the Property (by writ of possession?).

9/24/2018: The Court in Case No. BC703616 signs an order granting Default Judgment against Dow. Judge signs an order appoint clerk as elisor to sign the grant deed for the Property.

10/12/2018: The Grant Deed signed by elisor names Plaintiff as the owner of the Property is recorded.

7/21/2020: Dow moves to Set Aside/Vacate the Default Judgment.

1/28/2021: Judge (Case No. BC703616) sets aside the default judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff did not properly serve Dow with the Complaint.

3/2021: Plaintiff appeals the Court’s decision to set aside default judgment.

7/3/2023: The Court of Appeals in a published decision (Case No. B311859) affirms the Court’s decision to set aside the default judgment.

10/12/2023: The Court of Appeals remits the case to the trial court.

4/24/2024: Dow files a Motion for Order Cancelling Court Executed Grant Deed (Case No. BC703616).

5/6/2024: Plaintiff requests and the Court enters the dismissal of Case No. BC703616. Plaintiff files the Complaint in this Court, alleging claims for:

1. Quiet Title and Declaratory Relief,

2. Adverse Possession, and

6/4/2024: Dow files a Cross-Complaint, alleging claims for: 1. Quiet Title, 2. Cancellation of Deed, 3. Reformation/Modification of Deeds of Trust Securing Financial Obligations of Defendant Alone, 4. Partition by Sale of Real Property, 5. Accounting, and 6. Request for CCP § 128.7 Sanctions.

6/18/2024: Plaintiff files her Demurrer to Dow’s Answer.

7/9/2024: Plaintiff files her Demurrer to Dow’s Cross-Complaint.

8/2/24: The Court partly sustains and partly overrules Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Dow’s Answer.

8/2/24: The Court overrules Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Dow’s 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action; sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer to Dow’s 3rd cause of action with leave to amend; and sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer to Dow’s 6th cause of action without leave to amend.

8/20/24: Dow voluntarily dismisses his 3rd and 6th causes of action without prejudice.

9/3/24: Plaintiff moves for Reconsideration of, or to Vacate and/or Set Aside, the Court’s 8/2/24 Order on her Demurrer to Dow’s Cross-Complaint.

9/24/24: The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order And To Set Aside, And/Or, Vacate Order on her Demurrer to Dow’s Cross-Complaint.

9/30/24: Plaintiff files an Objection to Dow’s Notice of the Court’s 9/24/24 Ruling.

10/31/24: The Court strikes Plaintiff’s Objection to Dow’s Notice of Ruling.

12/30/24: Dow moves for leave to amend his Cross-Complaint.

2/27/24: The Court grants Dow’s Motion for Leave to Amend, with the condition that missing necessary parties be added to the FAXC and the FAXC as corrected be filed within one day. The Court notes that “[a]ll of the objections that plaintiff/cross-defendant raises to the merits of the causes of action pled in the FAXC were raised previously in the demurrer.”

2/27/25: Dow files his FAXC, asserting claims for:

2. Cancellation of Deed,

3. Partition by Sale, and

4/1/25: Plaintiff files her instant Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Dow’s FAXC.

4/14/25: Plaintiff files a Request for Judicial Notice and Notice of Errata in Support of her Demurrer.

4/21/25: Dow files his Opposition to Plaintiff’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike.

The Court OVERRULES the demurrer, and DENIES the motion to strike.

Plaintiff reiterates arguments she raised in (1) her demurrer to the initial cross-complaint, (2) her motion for reconsideration of the order overruling the same, and (3) her opposition to Dow’s motion for leave to file his FAXC. (Portions of the moving papers appear to be copied and pasted from plaintiff’s earlier set of moving papers. (Compare 06-18-2024 Dem., 20:13-23:2, with 04-01-2025 Dem., 22:12-25:22.)

Dow complied with the Court’s ruling of 2/27/25 permitting leave to amend on certain conditions. The only change between the initial cross-complaint and FAXC is a minor amendment to a single paragraph and the dismissal of the 3rd and 6th causes of action, to which the Court sustained Plaintiff’s demurrer in its 8/2/24 Order.

Plaintiff construes Dow’s amendment as an improper inclusion of his 3rd cause of action within his 1st. It is not. Nor is it an improper disguised request for deed reformation, given that that prayers for reformation have been stricken from the FAXC. The Court already ruled the amendment is proper. And objection to individual allegations within the pleading is properly the subject of a motion to strike; Plaintiff’s motion to strike, improperly included within her demurrer, only requests that the Court strike the entire FAXC.

The Court, affirming its prior rulings, overrules Plaintiff’s demurrer in its entirety, and denies her motion to strike.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court rules on Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice as follows, without adopting any of her legal arguments as to what each request “shows”:

(1) DENIED. The Court does not need to take judicial notice of published California precedents.

(2) GRANTED. The Court may take notice of judicial records. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).)

(3-6) DENIED. Although she construes her requests otherwise, Plaintiff in fact requests notice of these records’ contents, which are not properly the subject of judicial notice.

(7) GRANTED. The fact of Dow’s allegations may be noticed. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).) Its contents is not.

(8) DENIED. The fact of the dismissals need not be noticed. It is within the Court’s own records.

Plaintiff requested notice of substantially the same materials in support of her July 2024 demurrer; the notice given here does not change the result.

III. PROCEDURAL ADMONITIION

The Court considers all of Plaintiff’s papers. However, the Court disapproves of Plaintiff’s filing a ten-page “Notice of Demurrer” and a nineteen-page memorandum of points and authorities, which improperly avoids page limits. Plaintiff must seek leave to file an overlong memorandum, and the Notice may not be used to avoid the Rules of Court. Such tactics will be rejected in the future.

This TR shall be the order of the Court, unless changed at the hearing, and by this reference shall be incorporated into the Minute Order.TR emailed to the parties on 4/29/25 at 1:45 p.m.