2014-00156358-CU-EI

City of Sacramento vs. State of CA PERS

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike Allegations in Complaint

Filed By: Speir, George B.

Defendant U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank
of America National Association, as Trustee, successor by merger to LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee, for the Certificate Holders of Bear Stearns
Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2002-TOP8’s (“Trustee”) motion to strike portions of Plaintiff City of
Sacramento’s (“City”) complaint is DENIED.

The Trustee’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of the
recorded land documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of
their contents. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th
1366, 1375.)

The Trustee moves to strike the following allegations “together with all improvements
thereon” and “together with all rights appurtenant thereto.” The Trustee moves to
strike these allegations on the grounds that they are false and inconsistent with Exhibit
A to the Complaint and the Resolution of Necessity (“RON”) because Exhibit A
specifically excludes “the building, structures, and other improvements located
thereon.” The Trustee argues that given this language, the City is not, as a matter of
fact and law, authorized to take such improvements.

The Court previously rejected this argument in its Order on the City’s motion for
prejudgment possession. And the Court again rejects this argument.

As the Court explained in its Order on the City’s motion for prejudgment possession,
the RON is ambiguous as to whether it excludes or includes the Trustee’s building,
structures and improvements. Thus, the Court looks to extrinsic evidence, such as the
Staff Report, accompanying the RON.

The Staff Report accompanying the RON states that “the property interests to be
acquired include fee simple title in and to the subject property at 600 K Street
Sacramento, California. . . . the City’s proposed acquisition of the property will include
fee title in and to the property, including any and all leases, improvements or other
encumbrances on the property.” Moreover, the purpose of the RON is to acquire the
Property to build an entertainment and sports arena. Inclusion of the building and
improvements in the RON “comports most closely” with the intent of the RON and
promotes the general purpose of the RON. (County of Humboldt v. Robert v. McKee
th
(2008) 165 Cal.App.4 1476,1490.)
Given this, the Court cannot conclude that the allegations in the complaint are false
and that the City is not, as a matter of fact and law, authorized to take such
improvements. Moreover, although the Trustee now argues that the RON’s ambiguity
renders the RON legally deficient under eminent domain law, the Court cannot make
such a determination on a motion to strike.

The Trustee shall file and serve an answer by no later than June 13, 2014.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.