Case Number: GC048960    Hearing Date: July 18, 2014    Dept: A

Alhambraa Gardens HOA v DLCC Corp.

DEMURRER

Calendar: 20
Case No: GC048960 (consolidated with GC049223)
Date: 7/18/14

MP: Defendants, DLCC Corp. and Dave Chen
RP: Plaintiff, Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association

RELIEF REQUESTED:
General Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants have negligently acted as property managers for the property. Trial set for August 18, 2014.

This hearing concerns the demurrer of Defendants, DLCC Corp. and Dave Chen, to the First Amended Complaint. The Defendants took their motion to compel discovery responses off calendar in a notice filed on July 9, 2014.

The Defendants argue that the entire First Amended Complaint is subject to a demurrer because the Plaintiff lacks standing. When an action is brought by someone other than the real party in interest, it is subject to general demurrer. Powers v. Ashton (1975) 45 Cal. App. 3d 783, 787.
The Defendants rely upon facts extrinsic to the pleadings to support their demurrer. The Defendants claim that on August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable admitted in a deposition that 109 HOA, Inc. was formed to manage the common interest condominium and that 109 HOA, Inc. is the real party in interest.
The Court has already considered this argument and found that there is a dispute regarding the real party in interest. On May 23, 2014, the Court heard the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was based on the same argument. The Court found that the Plaintiff had presented evidence that it had standing because the homeowners formed the Plaintiff, Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association, after David Chen abandoned the project. At that time, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

A hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the Court take judicial notice of affidavits, declarations, depositions, and other such material which purports to contradict the allegations and contentions of the plaintiff. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 593, 605.
The essence of the Defendants’ demurrer is the “admissions” in the deposition of Albert Lin (see portion of deposition transcript in request for judicial notice, exhibit 1). On August 29, 2013, Mr. Lin testified that Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association had the main purpose of managing the condominium. Further, Mr. Lin testified that 109 HOA, Inc. was a nonprofit organization that was formed to manage the common interest condominium. Mr. Lin then testified that Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association was the general term that was used to talk about the homeowners association.
The testimony is contradictory because it appears that Mr. Lin is testifying that there were two organizations to manage the common interest development: Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association and 109 HOA, Inc. Since his testimony is contradictory, it cannot be determined for the purposes of a demurrer that 109 HOA, Inc. has standing and not Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association.

The Defendants provide responses to form interrogatories. Form Interrogatory 3.1 requested that the Plaintiff identify whether it was a corporation and to provide the name in its articles of incorporation. The Plaintiff’s response was that it was a corporation and that its name was 109 HOA, Inc. (see response in request for judicial notice, exhibit e). Since the Plaintiff’s response indicates that it is 109 HOA, Inc., this indicates that, if 109 HOA, Inc. is the real party in interest, then the Plaintiff has standing because it has stated in response to discovery that it is 109 HOA, Inc. This does not support the demurrer; on the contrary, it would be grounds to overrule the demurrer because it is a fact indicating that the Plaintiff has standing.

In the opposition, the Plaintiff explains that Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association is an unincorporated homeowners association that is bringing a claim regarding defects in the common areas. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant is attempting to use the testimony of individuals who lack the legal knowledge required to make the legal conclusions drawn from their statements.

If the Defendants sought to demonstrate that the undisputed facts establish that Alhambra Gardens Homeowners Association has no standing, they might have filed a motion for summary judgment. As noted above, the Defendants obtained facts in the deposition of Albert Lin on August 29, 2013. Defendants used a motion to dismiss and now a demurrer to raise these issues. These are not the proper procedural methods for resolving factual issues. See e.g., Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 873, 879 (finding that a demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts).

Therefore, the Court will overrule the Defendants’ general demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.

RULING:
OVERRULE demurrer