Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV43833, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV43833    Hearing Date: November 22, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Paladar Capital Investments, L.P.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court considered the moving and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.[1]

The court notes that the reply papers reference a “belated opposition” to this motion.  (Reply, pp. 2:2-4, 2:3:13-16.)  However, plaintiff Felisa Dee Richards did not file any opposition papers with the court.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The court grants defendant Paladar Capital Investments, L.P.’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibit 3.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c); Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 924, n. 1 [trial court properly took judicial notice of recorded documents].)

            The court denies defendant Paladar Capital Investments, L.P.’s remaining requests for judicial notice because those materials are not relevant to the court’s ruling on this motion.  (Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [“Any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue”].)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Paladar Capital Investments, L.P. (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings to the 19th cause of action for quiet title alleged in the First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff Felisa Dee Richards (“Plaintiff”).[2]

The court grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the 19th cause of action for quiet title because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant since (1) “‘[a]n element of a cause of action for quiet title is “[t]he adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought[,]”’” and (2) the facts of which the court has taken judicial notice show that Defendant sold the subject property, such that Defendant does not have an adverse claim to title to the property.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii); Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1010 [internal citations omitted] [finding that the subject “deed establishes that the Property was sold to [another party], such that none of the Bank Defendants had an adverse claim to title to the Property”]; West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 802 [finding that the bank defendant’s argument that the quiet title cause of action had no merit because the bank defendant no longer held title to the property “has merit”]; RJN Ex. 3, Grant Deed recorded July 29, 2022 [showing that Defendant granted to Ammar Aldieri and Laura Hoxha the property at 28040 Concord Avenue, Castaic Area, California, 91384]; FAC ¶¶ 1 [defining the “Real Property” to be the property located at 28040 Concord Avenue, Castaic, California, 91384], 564 [requesting that title and possession of the Real Property be restored to Plaintiff].)  

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)  The court (1) notes that Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this motion, and (2) finds that Plaintiff has not articulated how she can amend her cause of action for quiet title to render it sufficient against Defendant.  The court therefore grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

ORDER

            The court grants defendant Paladar Capital Investments, L.P.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Felisa Dee Richard’s 19th cause of action for quiet title without leave to amend.

             The court orders defendant Paladar Capital Investments, L.P. to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days of the date of this ruling.

            The court orders defendant Paladar Capital Investments, L.P. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 22, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court