Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV02424, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02424    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 39

Jesus Diaz, et al. v. RTED Irvine, LLP, et al.

Case No. 22STCV02424

Motion for Summary Judgment

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs Jesus Diaz and Araceli Diaz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against RTED Irvine LLC (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for quiet title, fraud, breach of contract, and negligence.  Now, Defendant moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.  The motion is granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

            This action relates to the property at 6535 Cottage Street in Huntington Park, California 90255 (the “subject property”).  (Complaint, ¶ 9.)  As of August 9, 2004, Plaintiffs were joint tenants of the subject property.  (See Defendant’s Separate Statement, ¶ 6.)  A deed of trust was recorded on December 28, 2006.  (Id., ¶ 7.) This first deed of trust refers to a note in the sum of $525,000, and this debt was secured by the property.  (Ibid.)  A second deed of trust was recorded on May 1, 2007.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  The second deed of trust secured a line of credit up to the amount of $150,000, and this debt was secured by the property.  (Ibid.)  The second deed of trust was transferred to Defendant. (Id., ¶ 10.)  Eventually, the subject property fell into foreclosure due to non-payment by Plaintiffs.  (Id., ¶¶ 14-18.)  Defendant acquired the property through this foreclosure.  (Id., ¶ 18.)  Defendant filed an unlawful detainer case to evict Plaintiffs.  (Id., ¶ 21.)  On May 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a verified first amended complaint in Jesus Diaz v. RTED Irvine LLC.  (Id., ¶ 25.)  Plaintiffs alleged that the foreclosure was defectively performed.  (Ibid.)  On July 22, 2014, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.  (Id., ¶ 28.) 

This case was filed on January 22, 2022.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “was using their name and paying the mortgage to the property until this year, 2021.”  (Complaint, ¶ 9.)  Plaintiffs allege that “they were in fact on the mortgage to the subject property and that all the payments were in order and the account was up to date.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “used their personal identity to acquire the apartment building and also to keep the Deed of Trust/Note by making the mortgage payments in their name.”  (Ibid.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . .  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is for quiet title.  As Plaintiffs concede, they are not the legal owner of the property.  Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause of action for quiet title.  (Lewis v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1866.)  Moreover, any dispute over ownership of the property stemming from the foreclosure was resolved by Plaintiffs’ prior case.  Therefore, the Court grants summary adjudication of the first cause of action.

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is for fraud.  In large part, Plaintiffs seek to relitigate the foreclosure action.  Not only were those issues resolved in Plaintiffs’ prior case, the statute of limitations has run on that cause of action.  Regardless, Defendant proffers evidence disputing the allegations.  (See Defendant’s Separate Statement, ¶¶ 46-50.)  Plaintiffs proffer no evidence in support of their cause of action.  Similarly, to the extent Plaintiffs predicate this cause of action on identity theft, there is no triable issue.  Defendant proffers evidence that it foreclosed on the property and became the owner.  (Id., ¶ 18.)  Plaintiffs proffer no evidence supporting their allegations of identity theft.  Plaintiff cannot raise triable issues of material fact by citing inferences “derived from speculation, conjecture, imagination, or guesswork.”  (Joseph E. Di Loreto, Inc. v. O'Neill (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 149, 161.)  Therefore, the Court grants summary adjudication of the second cause of action. 

            Plaintiffs’ third cause of action is for breach of contract.  Defendants proffer evidence that there was no contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant.  (Id., ¶¶ 46-50.)  Plaintiffs proffer no evidence in response.  Moreover, the statute of limitations has run on this cause of action.  Therefore, the Court grants summary adjudication of the third cause of action.

            Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action is for negligence.  This cause of action is based on alleged misrepresentations and concealments.  The Court grants summary adjudication for the reasons discussed above. 

Plaintiff requests leave to amend in its opposition.  If Plaintiff desires leave to amend, Plaintiff was required to request leave to amend no later than the hearing on the motion.  (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663.)  Plaintiff’s request in the opposition papers is insufficient.  (Hutton v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

2.         The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial dates.

3.         The Court advances and continues the hearing on the demurrer filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC from July 5, 2023, to July 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

4.         The Court issues an Order to Show Cause why Defendant Rande Johnson should not be dismissed for violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, and lack of prosecution under Code of Civil Procedure sections 581 and 583.  This OSC hearing shall be held on July 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. at the following location:

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

111 North Hill Street

Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)

Los Angeles, California 90012

The parties may appear remotely or in-person.  Plaintiffs’ counsel may file a response (or a proof of service) on or before July 3, 2023.  The Court provides notice that if Plaintiffs’ counsel does not serve Defendant Rande Johnson and appear at the hearing, absent good cause, the Court will dismiss Defendant Rande Johnson without prejudice.

            5.         The Court shall hold a case management conference on July 11, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

            6.         Counsel for RTED Irvine LLC shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.