Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV04635, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV04635    Hearing Date: February 7, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 30, 2024, plaintiff Michael Tuan Loi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for partition against defendants Bobby Han Vinh Loi (“Loi”) and Michelle Vangia Loi Bock (“Bock”) (together, with Loi, “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks partition by sale of the single-family residence located at 5224 Hallowell Avenue, Temple City, CA 91789 (“Property”). Plaintiff alleges he owns a 25% undivided interest in the Property, while Loi and Bock own 50% and 25%, respectively.

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for interlocutory judgment and appointment of a partition referee.

The motion is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Section 872.710, subdivision (a) states: “At the trial, the court shall determine whether the plaintiff has the right to partition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.710, subd. (a).) “If the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall make an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of the parties in the property and orders the partition of the property and, unless it is to be later determined, the manner of partition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.720, subd. (a).) Viewed together, sections 872.710, subdivision (a) and 872.720, subdivision (a) indicate that a court’s determination regarding an interlocutory judgment is to be made at trial, or by means of a properly filed dispositive motion as allowed under the Code of Civil Procedure.

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff appears to be proceeding by way of a motion for judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiff refers to the meet and confer requirement set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 439, even if the particular section is not included in the notice of motion. (Motion, p. 6.) Plaintiff submits copies of title reports and the deed for the Property. Bock has stipulated to the ownership interests set forth in the Complaint and Loi asserts a 50% interest in the Property in his answer. Therefore, Plaintiff has established that he is entitled to partition. Additionally, since the Property is a single-family residence, partition by sale would be more equitable than a physical partition of the Property into three parts.

As for Plaintiff’s request to appoint a partition referee, Plaintiff submits the declaration of Matthew L. Taylor, a proposed referee with extensive experience as a receiver and partition referee. (Taylor Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) The Court has reviewed Mr. Taylor’s qualifications and, absent any objections from either defendant, appoints him as the partition referee in this matter.

IV.        CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory judgment of partition by sale of the property is GRANTED. Mr. Taylor is appointed as the partition referee. The Court sets a status conference for __________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse. A status report from the referee shall be submitted no later than 5 court days before the hearing.

Dated this 7th day of February 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.