Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00721, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00721    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: G

Cross-Defendants Carlota G. Cruz and Dora Cruz’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint

Respondent: Cross-Complainants Esteban Cruz and Ruth Cruz

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendants Carlota G. Cruz and Dora Cruz’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is CONTINUED TO A DATE AND TIME TO BE DETERMINED in Department G (Pomona). Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainants are ordered to brief the court on why the court should or should not transfer the First Amended Cross-Complaint to a Probate Department, subject to the briefing schedule set by the court at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a dispute over a family trust. On September 3, 1998, Carlota G. Cruz (Carlota Cruz) and Carlota Cruz’s husband, Antonio V. Cruz (Antonio Cruz), formed The Antonio V. Cruz and Carlota G. Revocable Trust (Cruz Trust) and are trustees of the Cruz Trust. On December 13, 2012, Carlota and Antonio Cruz amended the Cruz Trust. All of Carlota and Antonio Cruz’s assets and real property were allegedly placed under the Cruz Trust. Due to their advanced age and medical conditions, Carlota and Antonio Cruz have become more dependent on their family members and currently live in Pomona with their daughter Dora Cruz. Carlota and Antonio Cruz also have a son named Esteban Cruz who is married to Ruth Cruz. Through Esteban and Ruth Cruz, Carlota and Antonio Cruz also have a grand-daughter Wendy Cruz.

Esteban and Ruth Cruz allegedly reside in residential property owned by Carlota and Antonio Cruz and have allegedly failed to (1) pay for property insurance on the residence and (2) pay property taxes. In March 2021, Carlota Cruz learned Antonio Cruz had made changes to Antonio Cruz’s health plan, allegedly at the behest of Esteban and Ruth Cruz. Carlota Cruz also learned Antonio Cruz had closed bank accounts and changed his mailing address to Esteban and Ruth Cruz’s address. Previously in February 2021, Carlota and Antonio Cruz had agreed that Esteban Cruz would assist in collecting rent from rental homes belonging to the Cruz Trust. However, Esteban, Ruth, and Wendy Cruz allegedly began managing the properties and intimidating tenants to force tenants to move out or pay rent.

On September 1, 2021, Carlota Cruz, as an individual and trustee of the Cruz Trust, filed a complaint against Esteban Cruz, Ruth Cruz, Wendy Cruz (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) elder abuse, (2) conversion, (3) accounting, (4) restitution, and (5) declaratory relief.

On July 21, 2022, Esteban and Ruth Cruz (collectively, Cross-Complainants) filed a cross-complaint against Carlota and Dora Cruz (collectively, Cross-Defendants) as trustees of the Cruz Trust, alleging the following causes of action: (1) defamation, (2) elder abuse, and (3) intentional interference with right of inheritance.

On August 29, 2022, Cross-Defendants filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same Defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On September 13, 2022, Cross-Complainants filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC) against the same Cross-Defendants and Roes 1-10, alleging the same causes of action.

On January 30, 2023, Cross-Defendants filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on November 28, 2022, and on December 14, counsel for Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainants attempted to meet and confer by exchanging letters. (Ruiz Decl., ¶ 4.) On March 30, the court continued the scheduled hearing so counsel could sufficiently meet and confer. On April 5, counsel met and conferred telephonically but were unable to come to a resolution. (Ruiz Suppl. Decl., ¶ 2.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for April 21, 2023, along with a case management conference. A post-mediation status conference/further trial setting conference is also set for June 28.

ANALYSIS

Cross-Defendants demur to the entire FACC on the grounds of subject matter jurisdiction and to each of the three causes of action for failing to state sufficient facts to state a claim. For the following reasons, the court CONTINUES the hearing for the parties to provide additional briefing on the issue of transferring the cross-action to a probate department.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.)

Discussion

Cross-Defendants argue the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Cross-Complainants’ FACC involves the internal affairs of a trust. The court disagrees.

In arguing the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Cross-Defendants quote to Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, stating “the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction . . .  concerning the internal affairs of the trust.” (Id., at p. 696.) However, the same authority also serves to defeat Cross-Defendants’ demurrer. In the preceding paragraphs, the court noted “subject matter jurisdiction, in the strict sense, is not at issue.” (Id., at p. 695.) This is because, as Cross-Complainants note, “[e]ven though a superior court is divided into branches or departments, pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 4, there is only one superior court in a county and jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department. Whether sitting separately or together, the judges hold but one and the same court.” (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1449.) Thus, the court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the FACC.

In Estate of Bowles, the court noted “the authority of a probate department to resolve the merits of the civil action along with the [probate case] was not a proper basis for sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.” (Estate of Bowles, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 696.) Instead, the question of assignment is determined by local rules. (Ibid.) Here however, neither party addresses this issue. Accordingly, the court orders Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainants to further brief the court on why the court should or should not transfer the present FACC to a probate department.

The court will set a briefing schedule at the hearing.