Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV01485, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01485, Date: 2023-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01485 Hearing Date: December 12, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 12, 2023¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01485

¿¿

CASE NAME: ADF Enterprises, LTD v. Daniel J. Woods, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: (1) Plaintiff, ADF Enterprises, Ltd.

RESPONDING PARTY: (1) All Defendants (No Opposition)

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff, ADF Enterprises, LTD (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Daniel J. Woods, Randy Adler, and David J. Nagel, as Co-Trustees of The Friedman Living Trust, 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, and DOES 1 through 30. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for Quiet Title.

In Defendants’ joint answer, they disavowed any interest in the property informally known as 14110 Cordary Avenue, Hawthorne, California 90250 on behalf of the Friedman Living Trust dated February 28, 1974. They also admitted to each allegation set forth in each paragraph or Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Plaintiff now files a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that there is no triable issues of material fact with respect to the sole cause of action for quiet title.

B. Procedural¿¿

On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP Section 437(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”¿ (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)¿ “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”¿ (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)¿

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. ) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”¿ (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)¿

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.¿¿¿

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

B. Discussion

Quiet Title

An action for quiet title seeks “to establish title against adverse claims to real or personal property or any interest therein.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 760.020, subd. (a).) In an action for quiet title, Plaintiff must plead (1) “[a] description of the property that is the subject of the action,” specifically the location of tangible personal property and the legal description and street address or common designation of real property, (2) “[t]he title of the plaintiff as to which a determination under this chapter is sought and the basis of the title,” (3) “[t]he adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought,” (4) “[t]he date as of which the determination is sought,” and (5) “[a] prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 761.020.)

Here, Plaintiff notes that it acquired the property from the previous fee owner, Retirement Care, Inc., pursuant to a Corporation Grant Deed executed on November 5, 1986 and recorded on November 10, 1986 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as Document Number 86 – 1530841 (SSUMF No. 1) (Declaration of Pervaiz (“Pervaiz Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff further contends that it has consistently recognized the gross rents from the Property as income to Plaintiff and has identified these gross rents on Plaintiff’s annual partnership tax returns (SSUMF No. 2) (Pervaiz Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit B; Defendants’ Answers, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff contends it has acted as sole lessor of the Property, has executed binding lease agreements with tenants for the Property since at least 1998, has paid all expenses associated with being the lessor, has paid all property taxes owed on the property for each year since recording the grant deed, and remains the named lessor in the lease agreement covering the current lease. (SSUMF 4-6) (Pervaiz Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, Exhibits C-E.)

Based on the moving papers, declaration, and Defendants’ answer, the Court finds that no triable issues of fact exist as to the title of the subject property. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, this Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed judgment tht specifically identified the property and specifically states that title is quieted as to the named defendants