Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 24STCV12908, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff Tameka Renee Crosland, in pro per, filed a complaint against Defendant Alex R. Borden arising from an action to recover possession of personal property. The complaint, though it has no enumerated causes of action, states in the heading that it is a complaint in replevin.

On July 24, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s entire complaint. Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition on December 30, 2024.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the Case Summary/Register of Actions for the proceeding entitled Estate of James Terry Crosland, III, aka James T Grassland, III (LASC Case No. 23STPB01325) (“Estate Proceeding”) (Exhibit A); the Order Appointing Administrator, issued on March 21, 2023, in the Estate Proceeding (Exhibit B); the Letters of Administration, issued on March 30, 2023, in the Estate Proceeding (Exhibit C); and the Inventory & Appraisal – Final, filed on June 27, 2024, in the Estate Proceeding (Exhibit D) is granted.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) “Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.” (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.)

In a replevin action, a complaint is insufficient if it does not “describe the property sued for with that degree of certainty that an officer may be enabled to execute the process.” (Welch v. Smith (1873) 45 Cal. 230, 230-231.) In other words, the complaint must contain a sufficient enough description of the property that a court can tell what the property is that is at issue.

In this case, the complaint does not give a sufficient description of the property. The only information given about the property is that it is in Los Angeles County and is the sum of $155,000.00, and that Plaintiff is the owner of the property by virtue of a Living Trust. (Comp., ¶¶ 1-2.) The Complaint states that a copy of the Living Trust is attached to the Complaint, but there is no Living Trust attached to the complaint, only a blank document that says “Living Trust” at the top of the page. (Comp., ¶ 2.) Without the alleged Living Trust, Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to establish her entitlement to the property.

Defendant’s demurrer provides a discussion of the Ward Trust, as established by Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. Defendant notes that he, as administrator, of the Estate in RJN Exhibit A, received a distribution from the Ward Trust in the amount of $155,034.71. (RJN, Ex. D.) Defendant speculates that this could be the source of the $155,000.00 that Plaintiff seeks to recover, but her complaint fails to state sufficient facts to establish Plaintiff’s entitlement to that money, nor does her complaint discuss the Estate Proceeding or Defendant’s role as administrator.

Because Plaintiff’s complaint is uncertain and fails to sufficiently describe the property or her entitlement to it, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained on this basis.

A complaint is subject to demurrer where there is a defect or misjoinder of parties. (CCP § 430.10(e).) Whether a defendant is a necessary party depends on whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against that defendant. (Gill v. Johnson (1932) 125 Cal.App. 296, 300.)

First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to indicate in what capacity she has brought this action. She does not indicate whether she has brough this action as an individual or in some capacity related to the alleged Living Trust.

Next, Plaintiff has sued Defendant in his individual capacity. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to establish how he, in his individual capacity, has any relation to or involvement in obtaining possession of any property that Borden, as administrator, has marshalled in the Estate Proceeding. In the complaint, Borden was not named as Defendant in his capacity as administrator. He was only named as an individual.

Because there was a misjoinder of parties, or at the very least a defect in the joinder of parties, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained on this basis.

A complaint is subject to demurrer where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. (CCP § 430.10(a).) “When two superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved.” (California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 109.) “Priority of jurisdiction resides in the tribunal where process is first served.” (Id.)

Defendant argues that to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking the funds marshalled by Borden in his capacity as administrator in the Estate Proceeding, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the complaint because those assets would be within the jurisdiction of the probate court where the Estate Proceeding is pending. A determination of whether Plaintiff is entitled to assets belonging to the Estate is best determined in the proceeding concerning the administration of the estate.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is also sustained on the basis that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.

Subject matter jurisdiction is not something that Plaintiff could obtain even if Plaintiff is given leave to amend her complaint, particularly if this action is based on a distribution that was made as part of the Estate Proceeding. Because Plaintiff could not remedy this defect by amending her complaint, nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that she could amend her complaint, then the Court will sustain Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court