Case Number: TC029118 Hearing Date: September 17, 2019 Dept: A

# 6. Ronald Knight v. Stella Knight, et al.

Case No.: TC029118

Matter on calendar for: Defendant Thomas Knight’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Tentative ruling: Sustained with 10 days leave to amend

I. Background

This is a quiet title and fraud action.

Plaintiff Ronald Knight (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants took Plaintiff’s property and forged documents including various quitclaim deeds that conveyed title in real property from Plaintiff to Defendant Thomas Knight (“Defendant”) and his now deceased wife Defendant Stella Knight.

On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed his complaint that alleges the following causes of action:

(1) Quiet title,

(2) Cancellation of deed,

(3) Fraud,

(4) Constructive trust,

(5) Declaratory relief, and

(6) Forgery

Plaintiff asserts against Defendant all causes of action except the sixth.

On July 16, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the default against Defendant.

Defendant demurs to the third and sixth causes of action for insufficiency and uncertainty.

Plaintiff opposes.

Defendant did not file a reply.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the demurrer.

II. Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer in person or telephonically with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) A demurring party shall file a declaration concerning the meet and confer. (Id., subd. (a)(3).) “Any determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” (Id., subd. (a)(4).)

Here, Defendant filed a declaration stating that Defendant’s counsel emailed and mailed a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on May 22, 2019. (Granato Decl. ¶ 3.) This declaration is inadequate. Defendant’s meet and confer efforts did not involve a conversation done telephonically or in person.

Although the Court cannot overrule the demurrer based on this inadequate declaration, the Court could take the demurrer off the calendar. Nevertheless, Plaintiff opposes on the merits and the Court finds no prejudice to decide the demurrer on the merits.

III. Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.App.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) “Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer.” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)

Under Code Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

IV. Analysis

A. Third Cause of Action – Fraud

Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not meet the heightened pleading standards for fraud.

To establish a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege: (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to defraud or to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.)

The liberal construction of pleadings does not apply to a fraud claim. Instead, a fraud claim must be pled with specificity. (Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 837.) Specifically, “[t]he particularity demands that a plaintiff plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469.)

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of factual allegations to support a fraud claim. Plaintiff does not allege any false representation or non-disclosure and facts constituting justifiable reliance. Notably, Plaintiff does not include facts that specify the time, place, manner, and content of the alleged false representations by Defendant to Plaintiff. If the alleged fraud is based on forgery, Plaintiff still must plead the specific details concerning this forgery to meet the heightened pleading standards.

The Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer with 10 days leave to amend.

B. Sixth Cause of Action – Forgery

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the sixth cause of action for forgery is only asserted against Sandra Perez and Does 1-100. (Complaint 8:20-21.) Additionally, the allegations themselves do not identify any other named parties (or numbered Doe defendants), and group “Defendants” together. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to deny Defendant’s demurrer as moot as to this cause of action because Plaintiff does not assert this specific cause of action against Defendant.

Nevertheless, the Court adopts the parties’ positions that the sixth cause of action is alleged against Defendant.

The California Penal Code makes forgery a crime. (See Penal Code, §§ 115 and 470.) These statutes do not provide any civil cause of action. Plaintiff does not cite any supporting authority stating otherwise. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer.

Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiff “proposes to amend the sixth cause of action from ‘civil forgery’ to fraud.” (Opposition 3:10-11.) However, the cause of action fails for the same reasons as set forth above.

The Court sustains the demurrer. The Court grants 10 days leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff seeks to maintain a fraud claim, but not a forgery claim.

V. Ruling

The Court sustains the demurrer with 10 days leave to amend as specified in this order.