Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00189, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00189    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 4-13-23

Case: 21CHCV00189

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, GG&C 1, LLC, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/ Plaintiff, Duda Adams

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint

·         8^th Cause of Action: Quiet Title

·         11^th Cause of Action: Adverse Possession

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Duda Adams filed a complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On August 16, 2021, Adams filed a verified first amended complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, restitution, conversion, loss of prospective economic advantage, quiet, declaratory relief, constructive trust, and adverse possession. Adams filed a notice of lis pendens on August 16, 2021 as well.

On March 15, 2022, the court entered a default judgment in favor of Adams for $1,830,723. The court also entered judgment “Quieting Title in the property located at 18834 Devonshire St., Northridge…in Plaintiff’s name...” On December 30, 2022, the court vacated the default judgment in its entirety. On April 13, 2023, the court sustained the unopposed demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend. On the same date, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On August 16, 2021, Adams filed a verified first amended complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, restitution, conversion, loss of prospective economic advantage, quiet, declaratory relief, constructive trust, and adverse possession.

RULING: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Defendants GG&C 1, LLC, and David Adams submit a demurrer to the eighth and eleventh causes of action in the second amended complaint for quiet title and adverse possession. Defendants challenge the lack of a specified basis for the quiet title claim---legal or equity. To the extent Plaintiff relies on the adverse possession claim, Defendants challenge the later alleged cause of action in that the quiet title claim in no way incorporates said adverse possession claim. On the adverse possession claim, Defendants challenge the failure to explicitly allege the payment of taxes element, as required under California law, and instead only relies on an allegation of contributing to payment.

Plaintiff in opposition maintains both claims are properly pled, with an equitable basis for quiet title. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff requests leave to amend in order to allege certain cultural underpinnings of the Romani (Gypsy) culture underpinning the claim to title. Plaintiff otherwise offers no specific opposition to the adverse possession challenge, and instead alternatively requests leave to substitute the eleventh cause of action for one of resulting trust and equitable mortgage.

Defendant in reply reiterates the lacking factual basis for equitable title, and the failure to pay taxes for at least five years—a required element for adverse possession in California law.

The court declines to consider the merits of the argument given admittedly omitted allegations of cultural context in support of the equitable title basis of the claim, and requested leave to substitute the adverse possession claim.

The court therefore sustains the demurer to the second amended complaint with 20 days leave to amend. The court grants Plaintiff leave to substitute the eleventh cause of action for resulting trust and equitable mortgage only. Plaintiff may not substitute any new causes of action other than the eleventh cause of action for adverse possession.

The subject action commenced on March 21, 2021, and still remains in the pleading stage. The court has now twice considered challenges to the first amended complaint and second amended complaint, with requests for leave to amend both times. “In response to a demurrer and prior to the case being at issue, a complaint or cross-complaint shall not be amended more than three times, absent an offer to the trial court as to such additional facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured to state a cause of action. The three-amendment limit shall not include an amendment made without leave of the court pursuant to Section 472, provided the amendment is made before a demurrer to the original complaint or cross-complaint is filed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (e)(1).)

Should a demurrer to the third amended complaint be filed, the court will consider the applicable standard in determining whether Plaintiff can properly allege the challenged claim(s). In other words, the court will review any potential challenges to the third amended complaint with the intention of rendering the case at issue by either sustaining any and all previously challenged causes of action without leave to amend, or determining Plaintiff finally states a valid claim. Any further requests for leave to amend will constitute a concession to the inability to bring the claim. If plaintiff foregoes filing a third amended complaint, Defendants are ordered to answer the remaining cause of action within the second amended complaint no later than ten (10) days after the lapsed amendment deadline.

Defendants to provide notice of the order.