Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 24STCV26644, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV26644, Date: 2025-04-17 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.

The court considered the moving and reply papers filed in connection with this demurrer.

The court has exercised its discretion to consider the opposition papers, untimely filed on April 7, 2025 (i.e., eight court days before the hearing), because the moving defendants filed substantive reply papers and did not object to the opposition papers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

The court denies defendants Jose De Jesus Moran and Maria Dolores Moran’s request for judicial notice because the matter to be judicially noticed is not relevant to a material issue presented by their pending demurrer. (Malek Media Group LLC v. AXWG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [“Any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue”].)

Defendants Jose De Jesus Moran and Maria Dolores Moran (“Defendants”) move the court for an order sustaining their demurrer to each cause of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint, filed in this action by plaintiffs Daniel Moran and Refugio Moran, Jr. (“Plaintiffs”) on January 9, 2025.

The court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the First Amended Complaint on the ground of uncertainty because it is ambiguous and unintelligible since Plaintiffs have not identified the party asserting each cause of action and the party or parties to whom each cause of action is directed as required, such that the First Amended Complaint is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.112, subds. (3) [“Each separately stated cause of action . . . must specifically state . . . [¶¶] The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading”], (4) [“Each separately stated cause of action . . . must specifically state . . . [¶¶] The party or parties to whom it is directed . . . .”].)

The court also sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action for quiet title on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged “[t]he title of [Plaintiffs] as to which a determination under this chapter is sought and the basis of the title” as required, because, as noted by Defendants, Plaintiffs have (1) alleged that Defendants “have refused to add Plaintiffs[’] name to the legal title of” the subject property (FAC ¶ 34 [emphasis added]), (2) alleged that Plaintiffs are “the true owners of” the subject property (FAC ¶ 31), which is inconsistent with the allegation that appears to suggest that Plaintiffs share legal title with Defendants, and (3) prayed for a declaration that results in the change of title to Plaintiffs (FAC Prayer, ¶ 1, subd. (a)), which is inconsistent with the allegation that appears to suggest that Plaintiffs share legal title with Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e), 761.020, subd. (b).)

The court also sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action for partition on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have not alleged the interests that Plaintiffs and Defendants claim in the subject property as required, instead only generally alleging that “[n]o person other than Plaintiffs and [Defendants] claim to have ownership interest in” the subject property (FAC ¶ 38). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 872.230, subds. (b) [partition complaint shall set forth “[a]ll interests the plaintiff has or claims in the property”], (c) [partition complaint shall set forth “[a]ll interests of record or actually known to the plaintiff that persons other than the plaintiff have or claim in the property and that the plaintiff reasonably believes will be materially affected by the action”].)

The court also sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of contract on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing the existence of a contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402 [elements of cause of action for breach of contract].)

The court also sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth cause of action for fraud on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have not alleged, with the requisite particularity, each element of this cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lauckhart v. El Macero Homeowners Assn. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 889, 903 [“Fraud must be pleaded with particularity. General and conclusory allegations are inadequate”].)

The court also sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have not alleged that there existed a contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Alameda Health System v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1159, 1190 [“A claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the existence of a contract, whether express or implied”]; Dem., p. 9:19-21.)

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to the sixth cause of action for unjust enrichment on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged, for purposes of demurrer, that (1) Defendants have improperly retained title to the subject property (FAC ¶ 63), such that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants have received a benefit, and (2) it would be inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefit (FAC ¶ 65), such that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants have retained this benefit at the expense of Plaintiffs.[1] (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lyles v. Sangadeo-Patel (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 759, 769 [“‘The elements for a claim of unjust enrichment are “receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another”’”].)

The court also sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the (1) seventh cause of action for negligence, and (2) eighth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, because Plaintiffs have stated that Defendants are not parties to those causes of action. (Opp., p. 13:9-21.)

The court sustains defendants Jose De Jesus Moran and Maria Dolores Moran’s demurrer to plaintiffs Daniel Moran and Refugio Moran, Jr.’s First Amended Complaint.

The court grants plaintiffs Daniel Moran and Refugio Moran, Jr. 20 days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that (1) identifies, as to each cause of action, the party or parties asserting the cause of action and the party or parties to whom the cause of action is directed, and (2) cures the defects in the first through fifth causes of action set forth in this order. The court does not grant leave to amend the seventh and eighth causes of action as asserted against defendants Jose De Jesus Moran and Maria Dolores Moran because plaintiffs Daniel Moran and Refugio Moran, Jr. have represented that those defendants are not named as parties to those causes of action.

The court orders defendants Jose De Jesus Moran and Maria Dolores Moran to give notice of this ruling.

[1] Although Defendants also argue in their reply that the unjust enrichment cause of action is derivative and duplicative of Plaintiffs’ other causes of action, Defendants did not make that argument in their moving papers.

daniel moran , et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. mel robles , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	24STCV26644

	Hearing Date:	April 17, 2025

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: defendants’ demurrer to first amended complaint