Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV04730, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04730    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 45

HOLLYWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC V. J M DELL LLC

DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE

Date of Hearing:          February 14, 2025                   Trial Date:       None

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         23STCV04730

Complaint Filed:            March 3, 2023

Moving Party:             Defendant J M Dell, LLC

Responding Party:       Plaintiff Hollywood Investments, LLC

Notice:                         Proper

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Hollywood Investments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) sued defendant J M Dell, LLC (“Defendant”) on March 3, 2023 and filed its operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on July 24, 2024. The FAC asserts claims for (1) quiet title and (2) declaratory relief.

As alleged in the FAC and accepted as true upon demurrer:

Plaintiff owns the property located at 2239 Alcyona Drive, Los Angeles 90068 (“Hollywood Property”). Plaintiff acquired the Hollywood Property from Plaintiff’s principal, Kim Oanh Pham (“Pham”).

Defendant owns the property located at 6339 Ivarene Avenue Drive, Los Angeles 90068 (“the Dell Property”). Defendant acquired the Dell Property from Defendant’s principal, Laura Siegel Larson (“Larson”).

The Hollywood and Dell Properties share a border.

When Pham acquired the Property, she retained a surveyor to perform a slope density survey in preparation for renovations. Upon receipt of the survey, Pham “learned for the first time of several possible encroachments onto other properties, including the ... Dell Property”. (FAC, ¶ 22.) The FAC does not allege Pham took any action regarding the encroachments at that time. She did, however, retain contractors to perform repair work on portions of the possible encroachments. Larson’s children emerged from the Dell Property and demanded that Plaintiff’s contractors stop their work. Defendant has now proposed to build a chain link fence (“Proposed Fence”) that will physically block Plaintiff’s access to various portions of the Hollywood Property.

This is at least the third litigation involving the Hollywood and Dell Properties. In 2011, the properties’ respective prior owners, Jackson Underwood and Nicole Duckett, settled a lawsuit with an agreement under which Underwood released all easement rights over the Dell Property. In May 2023, Plaintiff sued Underwood, claiming among other things that he failed to disclose that he had quitclaimed the easements before he sold Pham the Hollywood Property.

Plaintiff has sued to quiet title over an equitable easement in favor of the Hollywood and over the Dell Property, and for a judicial determination of the parties’ rights regarding the same.

On July 5, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend. The Court took notice of the Quitclaim Deed wherein Jackson Underwood released easement rights over the Property to Nicole Duckett. The Court also took notice of Plaintiff’s allegations against Underwood in her lawsuit arising from his failure to disclose material facts when Pham purchased the Hollywood Property.

In relevant part, the Court found as follows:

“[B]ased on (1) Plaintiff’s allegations on [sic] the Underwood Lawsuit, (2) the fact that the Quitclaim Deed states that the contracting parties entered into the Quitclaim Deed ‘for the sole purpose of releasing and extinguishing any claims ... [Dr. Underwood’s] affiliates might have had based on claims of easement ...,’ (3) Plaintiff does not dispute that Pham and Plaintiff were Dr. Underwood’s ‘affiliates’ within the meaning of the Quitclaim Deed, and (4) an ‘equitable easement’ is a claim that Plaintiff ‘might have had’ within the meaning of the deed ..., Plaintiff is not entitled to an equitable easement.”

(07-05-2024 Order, p. 11.)

The Court proceeded to find no present controversy over the easement, and also granted the motion as to Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief.

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed its FAC. The FAC includes new allegations and a sworn declaration from Underwood regarding his and Duckett’s intent when executing the 2011 Quitclaim Deed. (FAC, ¶¶ 17-20 and Exh. E [Underwood Decl.].) Underwood attests he and Duckett’s dispute did not involve any of the easements at issue here, nor did he intend to release any claims to such easements. (Ibid.) As to Plaintiff’s 2023 lawsuit against Underwood, Plaintiff alleges that when Pham claimed Underwood had released all easements, she “was not making any kind of factual admission”, but “opining on the potential legal effect of the Quitclaim Deed”, despite the fact that she “is not a lawyer.” (FAC, ¶¶ 27-28.)

On September 24, 2024, Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s FAC. Defendant argues, in brief, that Plaintiff has added nothing to her initial complaint, and it should fail for the same reasons that the Court granted Defendant’s prior motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant concurrently moved to strike portions of the FAC.

On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike.

On February 7, 2025, Defendant filed its reply.

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained in its entirety, without leave to amend.

The motion to strike is denied as moot.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has added nothing to her initial complaint that materially changes the analysis in the Court’s July 5, 2024 ruling.

Plaintiff relies on new allegations regarding her intent and Underwood’s to persuade the Court the facts should be construed differently. But their intent does not change the facts.

“California recognizes the objective theory of contracts (Berman v. Bromberg (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 948...), under which ‘[i]t is the objective intent, as evidenced by the words of the contract, rather than the subjective intent of one of the parties, that controls interpretation’ (Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1122, 1127 ... ). The parties' undisclosed intent or understanding is irrelevant to contract interpretation. “ (Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v. New Beach Country Club, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 944, 956.) The objective theory appears clearly in two sections of the Civil Code:

(1) “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit.” (Civ. Code, § 1638), and

(2) “When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible[.]” (Id., § 1639.)

As a result, neither Plaintiff’s nor Underwood’s construal of the language of Underwood’s settlement or the Quitclaim Deed can change the Deed’s interpretation. Its language is plain.

Similarly, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s factual allegations in the Underwood Lawsuit can be construed as “opinions” about the Deed’s legal effect.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s recharacterization of her allegations against Underwood, the final two factors informing the Court’s prior ruling remain unchanged: (1) the still-undisputed fact that Plaintiff is Underwood’s “affiliate” for purposes of the Quitclaim Deed; and (2) the still-undisputed fact that Plaintiff’s claim is one that an affiliate “might have had” when the Quitclaim Deed was executed.

Plaintiff has not cured her pleading by amendment. Because she has failed to amend her complaint to state a claim on any theory, she has also not demonstrated she can cure it by a second amendment. In fact, in her opposition, Plaintiff contends the Court is not bound by the “law of the case”, the Court may “reconsider any ruling”, and Plaintiff “does not have to plead an ‘alternative legal theory’ ” – all of which amounts to an attack on the Court’s reasoning, rather than a showing that the complaint can be cured with further facts. Plaintiff has not carried her burden.

The demurrer is sustained without leave  to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. The motion to strike is denied as moot.

Moving party to give notice.