Case Number: TC029135 Hearing Date: September 10, 2019 Dept: A

# 9. Pablo Arturo Cardoza, et al. v. Martha Munoz Martinez, et al.

Case No.: TC029135

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative ruling:

Background

Plaintiffs Pablo Arturo Cardonza and Jesus Diaz Munoz claim that defendant Martha Munoz Martinez caused their mother, Olivia Munoz, to execute a Grant Deed in 2005, transferring title to Martha Munoz Martinez and her husband, Jose Jesus Martinez. Martha Martinez allegedly caused her mother’s signature to be notarized and then forged the signature of her father, Jose Munoz. The Grant Deed was recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office on July 21, 2005 by United Title Company.

On February 11, 2008, Martha Munoz Martinez and Jose Jesus Martinez signed an Interspousal Grant Deed in favor of Jose Jesus Martinez. It was recorded by defendant Fidelity National Title Company. Jose Jesus Martinez then took out additional sums against the property. Between October and November 2017, both Olivia Munoz and Jose Munoz passed. Plaintiffs then inspected the title and discovered the transfers. Defendant Wilmington Trust is the current trustee.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

Quiet title;

Breach of fiduciary duty;

Intentional misrepresentation;

Negligent misrepresentation;

Intentional interference with expected inheritance;

Rescission;

Common count;

Negligence; and

Declaratory relief.

Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. Defendant Wilmington Trust and, separately, Defendants Martha Munoz Martinez and Jose Martinez, oppose. A reply has been filed and considered.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

Standard

A “motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (C.C.P., § 437c(c).) “A moving party need only show it is entitled to the benefit of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence in order to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party to show there are triable issues of fact. [Security Pac. Nat. Bank v. Associated Motor Sales (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 171, 178–179.]” (Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 635, 644.) Once the moving party has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the opposing party cannot rest upon the mere allegations of the pleadings but must present admissible evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 844.) “In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom… and must view such evidence… in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Id. at 844-845; C.C.P., § 437c(p)(2).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (C.C.P., § 437c(f)(1).)

Analysis

Judicial Notice

The Court grants the parties’ requests for judicial notice of various recorded instruments and of documents filed in this action.

Validity of 2005 Grant Deed

Each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action rely on the 2005 Grant Deed being invalid. Plaintiffs supply the following undisputed material facts and the accompany evidence citations in their separate statement:

“The 2005 Deed was fraudulently recorded as it did not bear the true and correct signature of Olivia Munoz and Jose Munoz on its face. (RJN Exhibit C.)” (Mtn. SepState, UMF 8)

“The 2005 Deed was a fraud as the signature of Jose Munoz does not appear in the notary’s official book. (Manavi Decl ¶2 and Exhibit A thereto). (Id. at UMF 9.)

These two facts underpin each cause of action. (see Mtn. SepState.) However, Plaintiffs’ counsel is not able to authenticate the notary book. A proper foundation must be laid. Nor is Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Deed, by itself, sufficient to meet their initial burden. Finally, even if this burden were met, Martha Martinez declares that the she did not forge the deed and that her parents knowingly signed it, creating a triable issue of material fact.

The introduction of Plaintiffs’ expert opinion as to the signature was via Plaintiffs’ Reply and improper, as Plaintiffs cannot introduce new evidence in reply. (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) As to evidence not cited in the separate statement, “the court may ignore evidence not disclosed in [the] moving party’s separate statement of undisputed facts.” (Id. at 315–316.)

Statute of Limitations

Plaintiffs misunderstand a ruling on demurrer, wherein Plaintiffs need only adequately plead the discovery rule, versus actually proving that their action is not barred by the statute of limitations. Failing to show the action is not time barred is another ground for denial of the motion.

Ruling

The motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is denied.