Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 24PSCV03213, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV03213, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03213 Hearing Date: April 2, 2025 Dept: G

Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

The court orders Plaintiff to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.32, subdivision (a) and to provide his telephone number and email address to the court and opposing counsel, forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is a quiet title action concerning the subject property located at 15122 Gale Ave., Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 (Subject Property). On September 30, 2024, plaintiff Juan Martinez Sanchez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Alejandro Gutierez, the Jose Manuel Fernandez Living Trust, “all persons claiming any legal, or equitable right title, estate, lien or interest in the subject property located at 15122 Gale Avenue Hacienda [H]eights, California 91745, APN. 8217-032-0055,” and Does 1 to 15, alleging (1) partition of real property, (2) quiet title, and (3) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges the following.

Plaintiff is a beneficiary of the Jose Manue Fernandez Living Trust (Trust) and asserts a 50% beneficial interest and a fee simple interest in the Subject Property. The Subject Property is the trust res. On August 22, 2024, Gutierrez initiated an unlawful detainer complaint against Plaintiff, attempting to remove Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family from the Subject Property. Gutierrez asserts a fee simple interest in the Subject Property. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the title to the Subject Property is vested in him alone.

On April 17, 2023, Gutierrez and the Trust (collectively, Defendants) filed this present demurrer.

A hearing on the demurrer and case management conference are set for April 2, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s entire complaint due to a lack of compliance with the California Rules of Court. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS Defendants’ demurrer.

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.)

Additionally, a demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty may be sustained when a defendant cannot reasonably determine to what he or she is required to respond. For example, when a plaintiff joins multiple causes of action as one, fails to properly identify each cause of action, or fails to state against which party each cause of action is asserted if there are multiple defendants, a complaint is uncertain. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (d) provides that a demurrer may be brought on grounds of misjoinder of parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (d).) But “a defendant may not make allegations of defect or misjoinder of parties in the demurrer if the pleadings do not disclose the existence of the matter relied on; such objection must be taken by plea or answer.” Harboring Villas Homeowners Association v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 426, 429.

Under 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.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

As an initial matter, the court addresses whether Defendants met and conferred under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Prior to filing the demurrer on January 31, 2025, Defendants’ counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff, who represents himself. (Jimenez Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4-7.) However, Plaintiff did not provide his contact information on the complaint, causing Defendants’ counsel to look for Plaintiff’s number in a prior unlawful detainer action. (Jimenez Decl., ¶ 4.) California Rules of Court, rule 8.32, subdivision (a) requires the attorney or unrepresented party to provide their mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and email address. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112(a).) The court admonishes Plaintiff since Defendants and the court have no way to contact Plaintiff, and no way to provide notice to Plaintiff until such contact information is provided.

On November 15, 2024, Defendants’ counsel began a telephone conversation with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff soon ended the call and said he would call back. (Jimenez Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants’ counsel did not hear back and called Plaintiff on November 27, 2024. (Jimenez Decl., ¶ 6.) Throughout December 2024, Defendants’ counsel called Plaintiff, but received no response. (Jimenez Decl., ¶ 7.) As of January 31, 2025, Defendants’ counsel has not heard back from Plaintiff.

While Defendants’ counsel was not able to fully meet and confer with Plaintiff about the demurrer, the court finds counsel’s numerous phone calls to constitute good faith attempts to do so. Furthermore, the court finds further attempts to meet and confer would not likely be productive given Plaintiff’s lack of response.

Thus, the court finds Defendants complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 and now considers the demurrer on its merit.

Lack of Compliance with the California Rules of Court

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert the causes of action against a specific party as required by the California Rules of Court. Due to these omissions, Defendants contend Plaintiff’s three causes of action fail to plead sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, are uncertain, and include a defect or misjoinder of parties. The court agrees the omissions cause the complaint to be uncertain.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, every “separately stated cause of action … must specifically state: … [t]he party or parties to whom it is directed[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112.)

In this case, Plaintiff does not specifically assert his causes of action against a party or parties. (See Compl., pp. 1, 3, 5.) As the complaint does not assert the cause of action against a specific party, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiff asserts the causes of action against Defendants, one of the Defendants, or “all persons claiming any legal, or equitable right title, estate, lien or interest in the subject property located at 15122 Gale Avenue Hacienda [H]eights, California 91745, APN. 8217-032-0055.” (Compl., p. 1.) Due to this uncertainty, the court finds that the omissions cause the complaint to be uncertain.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is SUSTAINED.

Defendants additionally contend Plaintiff does not plead his causes of action with specificity, because Plaintiff makes contradictory statements about whether he has a 50% or 100% interest in the subject property, makes conclusory allegations concerning the status of the prior unlawful detainer action, and misrepresents his ability to continue his unlawful possession of the property. (Motion, pp. 7:25-8:3.) Defendants do not explain how this affects Plaintiff’s three causes of action. For this reason, the court disagrees with this contention.

Leave to Amend

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has not shown a reasonable probability that he can amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies discussed above, because he did not file an opposition or respond to Defendants’ meet and confer attempts. Nevertheless, the court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

The court orders Plaintiff to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.32, subdivision (a) and to provide his telephone number and email address to the court and opposing counsel, forthwith.