Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 20CHCV00303, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20CHCV00303, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00303 Hearing Date: October 23, 2023 Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-23-23

Case # 20CHCV00303

Trial Date: 11-27-23 c/f 9-18-23 c/f 5-1-23 c/f 3-27-23 c/f 5-9-22

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Sayra Alvarado, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Walter Martin

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Reconsideration of the April 5, 2023, Order to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Walter Martin and Imposition of Sanctions

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Walter Martin, trustee for the Gesner L. Martin living trust, entered into a month-to-month lease agreement for certain premises with Defendants Sayra Alvarado, Norma Saleido, and Jonathan Banuelos. Defendants took possession of the premises on the same date. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the lese by keeping more than one pet on the premises without prior written approval. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants failed to perform agreed upon maintenance. Plaintiff cancelled the lease, but Defendants continue to occupy the premises without paying rent since May 2019.

On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Lease Contract. Defendant answered the complaint on June 24, 2020, and filed a cross-complaint against Martin for Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligence, Constructive Eviction, Nuisance, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Retaliatory Acts, and Trespass. On August 7, 2020, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants answered the cross-complaint.

On January 7, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, Negligence (tortious injury to real property), and Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.

RULING: Granted.

Request for Judicial Notice: Denied as to Ex. 1-2, 4 7-10; Granted as to Ex. 3, 5, 6

Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Sayra Alvarado, Norma Saleido, and Jonathan Banuelos move for judgment on the pleadings on the complaint Breach of Lease Contract brought by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Walter Martin. Defendants bring the motion on ground that Walter Martin lacks standing to prosecute the action, due to a suspension of Martin as trustee of the Gesner L. Martin Living Trust (GLM) by the Antelope Valley Court. Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed a notice of non-opposition two days after the opposition due date. Three court days following the opposition due date, Plaintiff filed a “supplement” to the opposition (no opposition appears on the court electronic filing system), whereby Plaintiff maintains Plaintiffs are ”mistaken” as to the status of the trust, and that Plaintiff in fact remains the real party in interest. Plaintiff maintains the trust only requires a “leader,” which currently being addressed in the probate court. Plaintiff otherwise challenges the basis of the instant motion, and contends the court must “abate” the probate action. Defendants/Cross-Complainants in reply challenge the untimeliness of the opposition, deny the existence of a “de facto landlord,” and maintain the action was properly brought upon learning of the suspension of Walter Martin as trustee.

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings serves the function of a demurrer, challenging only defects on the face of the complaint… [¶] The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the complaint or from a matter of which the court may take judicial notice.” (Richardson-Tunnell v. School Ins. Program for Employees (2007) 157 Cal.App.4^th 1056, 1061.) In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether the factual allegations, assumed true, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452-453.)

“No motion may be made pursuant to this section if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (e).) The motion was untimely filed under the first portion of the statute, but lacks any specific argument against court exercised discretion to consider the motion. “[S]ection 438, subdivision (e) ‘authorizes the trial court to permit late filings of such motions and does not specify any grounds which might serve to limit its power to do so.’” (Korchemny v. Piterman (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1054.) The court in its discretion finds the motion presents arguments impacting the trial and therefore considers the motion.

As for the sufficiency of the meet and confer effort, the court finds the declaration attesting to efforts sufficient, and otherwise declines to consider any potential argument on this basis. “A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(4).)

The court takes judicial notice of the existence of the content of the court orders in the Antelope Valley Probate Department regarding the removal of Walter Martin as trustee of the GLM, but not the truth of the matter regarding any factual finding for the basis of said orders. (Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360, 382; Barri v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 428, 437.) The court considers the order removing Martin for its preclusive impact on the instant action. (Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 988, 1005.)

The court finds no support for the argument allowing for a collateral challenge to the validity of the Probate Court order. (Keading v. Keading (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1115, 1123; Lee v. An (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 558, 563-564; Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 857, 862; California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109; California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109; Shuffer v. Board of Trustees (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 208, 217.) The court therefore categorically declines to consider any arguments regarding the requested abatement of the underlying probate action based on claims of an invalid order. The court lacks jurisdiction to consider this request. Any challenges should be brought before the Probate Court.

The court therefore concludes that Walter Martin was removed as trustee, which precludes any appearance as trustee in the instant action. Walter Martin therefore lacks standing to prosecute the complaint. (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1000; Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 691.) The purported failure to substitute in a new trustee lacks both evidentiary support, and in no way supports the continuing appearance of Walter Martin as a removed trustee either way. Nothing in the “supplemental opposition” otherwise provides any legal support for the continued standing of Walter Martin as the “de facto” trustee. (In re Hite's Estate (1909) 155 Cal. 436, 441.)

The motion is therefore granted. Given that the action was brought on behalf of the trust, the court declines to dismiss the action in its entirety. The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the complaint of Walter Martin as trustee is therefore granted without prejudice/with leave to amend pending substitution of the new trustee(s) into the action. The new trustee(s) can substitute into the action or elect to dismiss the action, but the court grants the trustee an opportunity to review the subject action. (See Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124, 1132.) The court declines to otherwise rule on the status of proceeding with the cross-complaint unless and until a new trustee appears, as any denial of the right to substitute could lead to an inequitable default against the trust without an opportunity to address the prior conduct of Walter Martin.

Because the court remains unclear whether the other parties are aware of the subject action, the court grants the new trustee 30 days to substitute into the action, or at a minimum update the court, if necessary, on the status of the trust. Any new trustee(s) must also address and potentially defend the actions brought against the trust. The court sets an OSC re: Update of the Trustee for December 4, 2023.

If no new amended pleading is filed, or will be filed, within 30 days of this order, the court requests an update on the status of the trustee appointment. No brief shall exceed five pages, and shall be filed no later than nine (9) court days before the hearing – November 17, 2023 (weekends and Thanksgiving holiday period not court days). If necessary, the trust lawyers may also request a longer continuance pending any potential substitution. Walter Martin may NOT reargue the merits of the opposition, if Martin elects to submit a supplemental brief for any reason. Any late supplemental brief from Walter Martin will NOT be considered.

Failure to substitute in a new trustee and file an amended complaint with the appointed trustee, or at least minimally update the court if for no other reason than to request additional time for appointment of a trustee, and/or repetition of the same arguments challenging the validity of the Probate Court order and/or the rights of a disqualified trustee to continue with the subject action by Walter Martin, may lead to a conclusion that Plaintiff remains unable to prosecute the action. If no amended pleading or updated information is therefore forthcoming, further leave to amend may be denied due to the inability to legally proceed with the action. In case of no amendment, the court will also consider any briefing by cross-complainants regarding the right to proceed with the cross-complaint.

The November 27, 2023, pending trial date will be continued to vacated.

Moving defendants/cross-complainants to give notice to all parties, including any designated or potential third party trustee(s), as well as attorneys Emanuel Thomas and Tamila Jensen.