Case Name: Brook Eaton and Cindy Levin v. California Water Service Company
Case No: 19CV351155

I. Background

Plaintiffs Brook Eaton and Cindy Levin (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against defendant California Water Service Company (“Defendant”) to quiet title.

According to the allegations of the complaint, Plaintiffs own real property in Los Altos Hills (the “Property”). (Complaint, ¶ 1.) The Property’s prior owner granted Defendant a three-foot wide easement for pipeline purposes. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Defendant erected and maintain a water pipeline outside of the easement grant, and claim a prescriptive and/or equitable fifteen-foot wide easement. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

As a result, Plaintiffs are seeking to quiet title against Defendant’s claimed easement and allege causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) injunctive relief.

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s demurrer.

II. Judicial Notice

In support of its demurrer, Defendant requests judicial notice of two instruments recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office. The first instrument is a “Grant of Easement” and the second is Defendant’s “Right of Way for Pipeline.”

The request is made pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h) which allows a court to take judicial notice of “facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination.” A court may take judicial notice of a recorded deed pursuant to this subdivision, “even if it negates an express allegation of the pleading.” (See Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382, citation omitted.)

As recorded instruments, the court may take judicial notice as requested. Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not oppose the request.

Consequently, the request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

III. Demurrer

Defendant demurs to all three causes of action on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). It also demurs to the first cause of action on the ground of uncertainty pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (f). Also, though not properly cited by Defendant, a demurrer for failure to name indispensable parties is one for misjoinder pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (d).
A. Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading, but not the truth of a plaintiff’s allegations or the accuracy with which he or she describes the defendant’s conduct. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 958; citing Committee on Children’s Television Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213.) A demurrer reaches only to the contents of the pleading and such matters subject to judicial notice. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732, citations omitted; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (a).)

B. Uncertainty

Defendant argues that the first cause of action for quiet title fails to provide a legal description of the Property. Though not specifically noted by Defendant, the proper ground for a demurrer to a cause of action for quiet title on this basis is uncertainty. (Warren v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36; Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subd. (f).)

To plead quiet title, it is sufficient if from the description provided a competent surveyor can locate the property at issue. (Warren v. Atchison, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at 36.)

Attached to the complaint is a legal description of the Property. (Complaint, Exhibit A.) However, the easement at issue is not described except by reference to its size, and its deviation from a smaller easement grant. Thus, as pleaded a surveyor could not locate it on the Property without more. Furthermore, the Court takes judicial notice of an easement recorded on the Property, and as pleaded, it is uncertain whether these easements are one in the same, or if the complaint refers to another, unrecorded easement on the Property.

Consequently, the demurrer to the first cause of action on the ground of uncertainty is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend on the basis that the easement is not sufficiently pleaded.

C. Misjoinder

Defendant argues the Property’s neighboring property owners are indispensable parties to the quiet title action.

A party may specially demur for misjoinder where it appears from the face of the complaint, or matters judicially noticed, that a third party is necessary or indispensable to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (d).) Where plaintiff seeks affirmative relief which if granted would injure or affect the interest of a third person not joined, that third person is an indispensable party. (Sierra Club, Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 495, 501.)

Defendant asserts that the neighboring property owners are indispensable because they benefit from its water services and are also parties to the easement alleged in the complaint. Certainly, the Court takes judicial notice of an easement that traverses the Property as well as adjoining lots. However, as previously indicated, it is uncertain whether the easement in the recorded document is the same easement the complaint alleges. Thus, as pleaded, it is not apparent that the easement affects other property owners. It also cannot be said from the face of the complaint or matters judicially noticed that the adjoining neighbors receive water services from Defendant or that such service would necessarily be disrupted by a judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor. As pleaded then, the claims do not affect the interest of any third party indispensable to the action.

Consequently, the demurrer to the first cause of action on the ground of misjoinder is OVERRULED.

D. Failure to State Sufficient Facts

1. First Cause of Action

Defendant also demurs to the first cause of action on the basis of the statute of limitations. However, its argument incorrectly states the relevant statute of limitations as one based on trespass, or three years.

The general rule states that the statute of limitations for a quiet title action “does not run against one in possession of land.” (Salazar v. Thomas (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 467, 477, citing Tannhauser v. Adams (1947) 31 Cal.2d 169, 175.) An outstanding adverse claim is a “cloud upon title” and is a “continuing cause of action…not barred by lapse of time…” (Id. at 478.) The application of any statute of limitations turns on whether the plaintiff is in exclusive and undisputed possession of the subject property. (Ibid.)

As alleged, Plaintiffs are fee simple owners, in exclusive possession of the Property (Complaint, ¶ 1), and as such the adverse claim asserted would not be time-barred.

Consequently, the demurrer to the first cause of action on the basis of the statute of limitations cannot be sustained.

2. Second Cause of Action

Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for declaratory relief on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts, as it is derivative of the first cause of action and also on the basis that a ripe controversy does not exist.

Where a plaintiff does not state sufficient facts to support a statutory cause of action and a demurrer is sustained, a demurrer is also properly sustained as to a claim for declaratory relief which is “wholly derivative” of the statutory claim. (Ball v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794, 800,)

Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief concerning the easement through a “declaration as to whether Plaintiffs contentions, as described above, are correct.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 10.) They also assert that a declaration is necessary to protect their interest in legal title. (Id. at ¶ 11.) As a result, the declaratory relief cause of action is wholly derivative of the first cause of action for quiet title which has not withstood the demurrer.

Furthermore, as the complaint fails to allege an actual controversy that is currently active, the cause of action for declaratory relief is subject to demurrer. (See Otay Land Co. v. Royal Indemnity Co. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 556, 563 [requiring an actual controversy that is currently active for declaratory relief].)

Consequently, the demurrer to the second cause of action on the ground of failure to state sufficient fact is SUSTAINED, with 10 days leave to amend.

3. Third Cause of Action

Defendant demurs to the third cause of action for injunctive relief on the basis that it is not a “cause of action” or alternatively that Plaintiffs cannot enjoin a public use.

However, where a remedy is improperly alleged, the appropriate motion is a motion to strike. (See Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 385, disapproved of on another ground by ZB, N.A., and Zions Bancorporation v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175.)

Defendant has not filed a motion to strike the request for injunctive relief, and proceeds only by way of demurrer. However, the irregularities of which it complains are not appropriately attacked by demurrer.

Thus, the demurrer to the third cause of action on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts is OVERRULED.

Calendar Line 2

– oo0oo –