Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00288, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00288    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: G

Defendants Rosa Torres, Florentino Torres, Juan Jose Uzeta, and Marrisa I. Uzeta’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Rosa Torres, Florentino Torres, Juan Jose Uzeta, and Marrisa I. Uzeta’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is CONTINUED TO A DATE AND TIME to be determined at the hearing.

Defendants’ counsel is also ordered meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the Demurrer and file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.

On the court’s own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court GRANTS a motion to strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed April 27, 2023 as improperly filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472.

BACKGROUND

This is an action to quiet title involving a residential property in La Puente (La Puente Property). On January 5, 1973, Defendants Rosa Torres and Florentino Torres (Rosa Torres’s husband) purchased the La Puente Property on the behalf of Rosa Torres’s minor sister, Lilia Uzeta Hernandez. On May 22, 1976, Rosa and Florentino Torres transferred title for the La Puente Property through a grant deed to Rosa Torres’s mother, Plaintiff Lucinda Uzeta Hernandez.

On September 14, 2000, Plaintiff alleges Rosa Torres falsely told Plaintiff that Plaintiff could not collect Social Security and Medicare benefits if Plaintiff still held title to the La Puente Property. In response to Rosa Torres’s alleged misrepresentations, Plaintiff transferred title for the La Puente Property through a quitclaim deed to Rosa Torres and Defendant Juan Jose Uzeta (Juan Uzeta), Plaintiff’s youngest son. Plaintiff alleges Rosa Torres and Juan Uzeta had agreed to hold the La Puente Property in trust for Plaintiff and all of Plaintiff’s children.

From November 2004 to July 2012, Plaintiff alleges Rosa Torres and Juan Uzeta obtained a series of loans from Defendant Jaime Carrea and others secured by deeds of trust on the La Puente Property without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. In 2012, Rosa Torres allegedly requested Plaintiff provide financial assistance so Rosa Torres could keep a house in Rowland Heights (Rowland Heights Property). Plaintiff agreed to move into the Rowland Heights Property so Rosa Torres could collect rent on the La Puente Property and collect money from the government for claiming to be Plaintiff’s caregiver.

In August 2020, after the Rowland Heights Property was sold, Plaintiff, Rosa Torres, and Florentino Torres moved back into the La Puente Property. While Plaintiff paid for the La Puente Property’s costs from 2012 to August 2020, Rosa Torres allegedly promised to cover the costs when they moved back into the La Puente Property. However, Plaintiff alleges Rosa and Florentino Torres refused to cover any costs or pay rent after moving into the La Puente Property. On March 30, 2022, Rosa Torres and Juan Uzeta transferred their interest through a grant deed to Defendants Adam Torres and Rosie Gutierrez without Plaintiff’s knowledge or permission. In April 2022, Plaintiff moved out of the La Puente Property after Rosa Torres refused to deed the La Puente Property back to Plaintiff.

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Rosa Torres, Florentino Torres, Juan Uzeta, Marrisa I. Uzeta, Adam Torres, Lisa Torres, Rosie Gutierrez, Joshua Gutierrez, Jaime Carrea, Does 1-100, and all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, or interest in the La Puente Property, alleging the following causes of action: (1) quiet title, (2) imposition of a constructive trust, (3) imposition of a resulting trust, (4) declaratory relief, (5) slander of title, (6) physical and financial elder abuse, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, (9) conversion, and (10) false imprisonment.

On April 3, 2023, Rosa Torres, Florentino Torres, Juan Uzeta, and Marrisa I. Uzeta (collectively, Defendants) filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on March 31, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter and did not receive a response. (Falcon Decl., ¶ 4.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for May 4, 2023. A case management conference and OSC re: Failure to File Proof of Service is also set for June 22.

ANALYSIS

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s first (quiet title), second (constructive trust), third (resulting trust), fourth (declaratory relief), fifth (slander of title), sixth (elder abuse), seventh (intentional infliction of emotional distress), eighth (fraud), ninth (conversion), and tenth causes of action (false imprisonment). For the following reasons, the court finds parties did not adequately meet and confer.

Legal Standard

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.)

Discussion

In this case, Defendants’ counsel sent a single letter to Plaintiff’s counsel that highlighted Defendants’ issues and requested a telephonic discussion. (Falcon Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.)  The court finds this sole attempt insufficient given Defendants’ counsel did not at least attempt to contact Plaintiff’s counsel telephonically or in-person. Accordingly, the court finds a continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ demurrer is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is CONTINUED TO A DATE AND TIME to be determined at the hearing. Defendants’ counsel is also ordered meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the Demurrer and file a supplemental declaration describing such meet and confer efforts at least (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing.

On the court’s own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court GRANTS a motion to strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed April 27, 2023 as improperly filed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472, subdivision (a), Plaintiff may only amend a pleading once without leave of the court “after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” If party seeks to amend the pleading after the deadline to file an opposition has passed, parties must stipulate to the filing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)

Here, the deadline to file an opposition to Defendants’ demurrer was April 21, 2023, which was nine court days before the May 4, 2023 hearing on the demurrer. Also, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was not filed pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. Thus, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was not properly filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 472.