17-CIV-00361 STEVE PETERSON, ET AL. VS. TERILYNN LANGSEF, ET AL.

STEVE PETERSON TERILYNN LANGSEF
LOUIS A. BASILE DOMINIC V. SIGNOROTTI

CCP 760.030(B) MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR. AND CLAIR S. JOHNSON, TRUSTEES TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Defendants Timothy A. Johnson Jr. and Clair S. Johnson (“Defendants”) Pursuant to CCP §760.030(b) is DENIED. Code of Civil Procedure Section 760.030(b) states that “[i]n an action or proceeding in which establishing or quieting title to property is in issue the court in its discretion may, upon motion of any party, require that the issue be resolved pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to the extent practicable.” Defendants appear to be arguing that Plaintiffs should be required to comply with the statutory requirements to quiet title in connection with their first cause of action for declaratory relief. Defendants acknowledge, though, that Plaintiffs also allege a second cause of action for quiet title in their Second Amended Complaint. Thus, Defendants fail to establish any grounds for granting this motion.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED. Defendants ask that the Court take judicial notice of a motion brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 760.030 with a Los Angeles County Superior Court case number. (See Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1.) There is no file stamp showing that it was filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court though. Accordingly, Defendants fail to establish that the Court may take judicial notice of it under Evidence Code Section 452(d) as part of a court record. Moreover, that motion argues that the plaintiff stylized its Complaint as a complaint for declaratory relief to avoid complying with the quiet title pleading requirements. In contrast here, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint contains both declaratory relief and quiet title claims.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 is DENIED. (See C.C.P. §128.5(f)(1)(A), (f)(1)(B).)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.