Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV01339 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01339, Date: 2023-01-04 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: 22PSCV01339 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 Dept: G

Defendant Elizabeth Turrietta’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Lauren Turrietta

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Elizabeth Turrietta’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint is CONTINUED. The court will set a date for the hearing on Defendants’s demurrer when the parties appear on January 4, 2023.

The court orders Defendant to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the Demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (5) court days before the scheduled hearing.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a family dispute over real property. Plaintiff Lauren Turrietta, formerly known as Lauren Medina, is a sister-in-law of Defendant Elizabeth Turrietta. In July 2019, Plaintiff wanted to purchase a property in Pomona but was unable to qualify for a loan to finance the purchase. Plaintiff then came to an agreement with Defendant in which Defendant agreed to co-sign for the loan and Plaintiff agreed to let Defendant live with Plaintiff for free until Defendant found another place. Plaintiff would then remove Defendant from the title and loan.

Plaintiff and Defendant then entered into a purchase agreement with a third party to purchase the Pomona property for $510,000. Defendant paid a portion of the down payment in the amount of $3,000 and Plaintiff reimbursed Defendant for the amount. Defendant lived with Plaintiff at the Pomona property for nine months without making any payments for mortgage, taxes, insurance, or rent before finding other living arrangements and moving out. When Plaintiff decided to sell the property in March 2022 for a listing price of more than $780,000, Defendant claimed a 50% ownership interest in the property.

On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint against Defendant and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) partition, (2) quiet title, and (3) breach of oral agreement. On December 5, Defendant filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing, Defendant’s counsel set a “meet and confer” to Plaintiff’s counsel explaining Defendant’ grounds for demurrer on November 10. On November 15, Plaintiff’s counsel responded and disagreed.

A hearing on the motion is set for January 4, 2023. A case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are also set for March 8, 2023.

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.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant generally and specially demurs to Plaintiff’s second cause of action (quiet title) and third cause of action (breach of oral agreement). For the following reasons, the court finds parties did not adequately meet and confer.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), prior to filing a demurrer, “the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” This section further provides that “the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).)

While Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(4) makes clear failing to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule a demurrer, courts “are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process” and if the court determines “no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355 & fn. 3.)

Here, the declaration from Defendant’s counsel is vague as to meet and confer efforts. Defendant’s counsel states “I sent a meet and confer to [Plaintiff’s counsel].” (Vokshori Decl., ¶ 2.) Five days later, Plaintiff’s counsel “responded respectfully,” “no agreement was reached,” and parties “were thereby unable to resolve the issues raised in Defendant’s demurrer.” (Vokshori Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel never described the medium used to communicate. Thus, without a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel stating counsel met and conferred in person or over the telephone as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), the court finds the meet and confer efforts insufficient.

Accordingly, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Defendant’s demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is CONTINUED.

The court will set a new date for the demurrer at the hearing on January 4, 2023.

The court will order Defendant to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the demurrer and to file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (5) court days before the next scheduled hearing.