Louderback et al. v. Walking U Ranch, LLC, et al.
Case No: 17CV05630
Hearing Date: Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Amend

John Louderback and Jacqueline M. Louderback (“Louderbacks”) alleged that defendants Walking U Ranch, LLC, Kathleen Bright, and Patrick March (together, Walking U Ranch) interfered with a 2-mile access road to the Louderback’s real property (793 acres) near Miranda Canyon and Cuyama Valley. In March 2017, Walking U Ranch allegedly blocked the access road by locking “one or more gates,” thereby preventing Louderbacks’ use of the access road. Louderbacks ask the court to restore and preserve access to and from their property over the access road through Walking U Ranch’s property. The Louderbacks filed their second amended complaint on June 1, 2018, against defendants Walking U Ranch, as well as all others who hold any interest in an near Miranda Canyon and Cuyama Valley, alleging causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) declaratory relief; (3) interference with easement; (4) nuisance; (5) slander of title; (6) unfair competition; and (7) intentional interference with prospective economic relations. On September 10, 2018, Walking U Ranch filed its answer to the second amended complaint, alleging 14 affirmative defenses.

On December 3, 2018, Walking U Ranch filed its first amended cross-complaint for (1) quiet title; (2) declaratory relief that Louderbacks etc. have no right to enter or cross Walking U Ranch land; (3) declaratory relief that Walking U Ranch had the right to lock the gates to protect animals etc.; (4) declaratory relief that Walking U Ranch had the right to lock the gate to protect it from liability for people passing over it ; (5) fraudulent concealment violating Civil Code section 1102; (6) fraudulent concealment violating California common law; (7) negligent concealment; (8) Elder Abuse; (9) declaratory relief re alleged equitable easement against defendant El Rancho Espanol de Cuyama (“Spanish Ranch”).

Trial is set for August 26, 2019.

On March 18, 2019, Walking U Ranch filed its motion to amend its answer to the second amended complaint and to amend its first amended cross-complaint.

The Motion to Amend First Amended Cross-Complaint is Denied

Taking the latter request first, on January 15, 2019, the court sustained El Rancho’s demurrer to the 9th cause of action of Walking U’s first amended cross-complaint “with leave to amend; said leave shall only be authorized by the Court at a later date, if it is in fact deemed to be appropriate by the facts and law of this case.” (January 15, 2019, Minute Order.) Walking U Ranch argues that it has now taken the deposition of the owner of Spanish Ranch, Dan Doiron, who testified that he is opposed to the court granting any equitable easement over Spanish Ranch. Walking U Ranch requests that the court now allow it to amend its first amended cross-complaint to include the 9th cause of action for declaratory relief because it is now able to allege the existence of a “controversy” sufficient for declaratory relief.

That request is denied. As previously held, Walking U Ranch does not have standing to assert a declaratory relief cause of action as it is seeking to establish the equitable easement for the Louderbacks’ use. The Court reaffirms its January 15, 2019 ruling that Walking U Ranch has no discernable standing to assert the 9th cause of action against Spanish Ranch, which is essentially a request for an equitable easement on the Louderbacks’ behalf. Moreover, the Court declines the request for issuance of an Order to Show Cause why the Louderbacks should not be ordered to add Spanish Ranch as a party.

Motion to Amend Answer to Second Amended Complaint

Walking U Ranch would like to amend the answer to the second amended complaint to add merger of title as a defense. The easement was allegedly granted in a document tiled “Right-of-Way” dated 10/13/72. The grantors were Roger and Willa Morehart. The grantees were Fritz and Susan Ahern, William Morehart, John Morehart, and Thomas Morehart. The deed stated, in part, “Grantor is the owner in fee simple of real property situated in the County of Santa Barbara . . . Grantee is the owner of an undivided interest, which interest has not yet been recorded as of this date, in fee simple of an adjoining parcel of land . . . [b]oth parties are agreed that Grantor shall grant to Grantee an easement for ingress and egress to Grantee’s property over the property of the Grantor . . .”

Walking U Ranch alleges that on January 1, 1974, all grantors and grantees transferred all their interests in both parcels to Theodore and Katherine Okie, thus vesting title of both the easement and the servient tenement in the Okies. Civil Code section 811 provides, “A servitude is extinguished: [¶] 1. By the vesting of the right of the servitude and the right to the servient tenement in the same person; …”; section 805 of the same code states: “A servitude thereon cannot be held by the owner of the servient tenement.” The rationale for these statutes is “to avoid nonsensical easements—where they are without doubt unnecessary because the owner owns the estate.” (Beyer v. Tahoe Sands Resort (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1475.)

Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge: “The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) However, the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158.) “Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180.)

Courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial,” absent prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in such a case, even if sought as late as the time of trial. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would result in a delay of trial, along with loss of critical evidence, added costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Walking U Ranch asserts it just learned of this defense when they deposed William Morehart. Louderbacks take exception to this argument, asserting that Walking U Ranch has been aware of the title history since the December 2017 Verified Complaint, which recounts title history, was served, or at the lasted, on May 12, 2018, when all deeds for the prior transactions were served in response to a request for production. In addition, Louderbacks argue that no liability can result, because the Okies only ever owned a fractional interest in the 793 acres, citing Zanelli v. McGrath (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 615, 629—in order to have merger of title, the same person or persons must own the entire interest of both the dominant tenement and servient tenement.) However, the Court will not examine the title history based on this record. The Court grants the motion to amend and will allow for the addition of this defense.

Louderbacks ask the court to impose conditions, relying on the language that it may “impose any terms as may be just and proper against the amending party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1).) Specifically, Louderbacks request the court order Walking U Ranch to pay for all costs and fees incurred by them in conducting additional discovery on the issue of merger of title. The court’s discretion to impose conditions on leave to amend the complaint “extends only to those conditions which are just, i.e., intended to compensate the defendants for any inconvenience belated amendment may cause.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642—error to condition amendment upon plaintiff responding to extraordinarily detailed discovery demand; Sanai v. Saltz (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 746, 769-770—error to condition leave to amend on plaintiff “produc[ing] admissible evidence” substantiating amended complaint.) Here, the requested condition, e.g., reimbursement of all costs and fees incurred in conducting additional discovery, is unrelated to any inconvenience the belated amendment caused. The request is denied.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, 3.1308 (a)(1) and Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rule 1301(b), the court does not require a hearing; oral argument will be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. (Department 2) the day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear. This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if notice of intent to appear has not been given. If no hearing is held, defendant is directed to provide a proposed order and judgment for signature commensurate with this tentative, with appropriate notice to defendant pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1312, which will then be entered by the court.