Case Number: KC067177 Hearing Date: February 17, 2015 Dept: J
Re: Christopher Espinoza v. Warner Creek Group, Inc., etc., et al. (KC067177)

MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Moving Party: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Christopher Espinoza

Respondents: Defendants and Cross-Complainants Warner Creek Group, Inc. and Tina Lee

POS: Moving OK; Opposing and Reply served by regular mail in violation of CCP § 1005(c)

This is a quiet title action filed by Plaintiff, in propria persona, against Defendants Warner Creek Group, Inc. and Tina Lee. The Complaint, filed on 9/26/14, asserts a single cause of action for quiet title.

On 10/23/14, Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Tony T. Nava, Rose Dina Nava, CitiMortgage, Inc. and Quality Loan Service Corporation alleging that they are bona fide purchasers of the subject property at a foreclosure sale. The Cross-Complaint, asserts causes of action for:

1. Negligence
2. Indemnity
3. Unjust Enrichment
4. Ejectment
5. Declaratory Relief
6. Fraudulent Transfer
7. Recession and Restitution

The Case Management Conference is set for 4/2/15.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE:

The court declines to take judicial notice of the deed of trust recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, attached to Cross-Defendant’s request as Exhibit A, since the facts contained in the recorded document is in dispute. (See Herrera v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375 – addressing recorded assignment of deed and substitution of trustee, and reversing summary judgment where bank defendant failed to show it was a beneficiary under deed of trust.)

The court declines to take judicial notice of the CitiMortgage Letter dated August 28, 2014, attached to Cross-Defendant’s request as Exhibit B. (Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co., Inc. (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 736, 744 – A court declined to take judicial notice of a letter, as not falling within any categories listed in Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452.)

The court declines to take judicial notice of the records in the Unlawful Detainer Action, Case No. 14P07268, on the ground that they are not relevant for the purposes of this motion. Judicial notice of other court records and files is limited to matters that are indisputably true. This generally means judicial notice is limited to the orders and judgments in the other court file, as distinguished from the contents of documents filed therein. (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113.)

The court declines to take judicial notice of the documents recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office and court records attached to Cross-Complainants’ request as Exhibits A-F, on the grounds that they are not relevant for the purposes of this motion.

MOTION TO DISMISS:

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Christopher Espinoza (“Espinoza” or “Cross-Defendant”) moves to dismiss the Cross-Complaint of Warner Creek Group, Inc. (“Warner Creek”) and Tina Lee (collectively “Cross-Complainants”) pursuant to Rule of Court 3.400, on the grounds that Espinoza was the record owner of the subject property and Espinoza’s actions did not cause any injuries to Cross-Complainants.

Rule of Court 3.400 defines a “complex case” as an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel. It is unclear from Cross-Defendant’s motion how the Cross-Complaint is subject to dismissal under this rule.

While it appears that Cross-Defendant is contending that Cross-Complainants do not have standing to assert the claims because they did not suffer any injuries (because Cross-Defendant is the record owner of the subject property), such facts do not appear on the face of the pleadings and/or documents that are judicially noticeable. In fact, the issue of the ownership of the subject property is the primary dispute in this action.

Cross-Defendant also appears to contend that Cross-Complainants’ allegation in the unlawful detainer action (that they have duly perfected the title sale of the subject property pursuant to CC § 2924) contradicts their allegations in this action that they do not have the title free and clear. (See CC ¶ 26). However, the Cross-Complaint also alleges that Warner Creek is the subsequent bona fide purchaser of this subject property at the foreclosure. (CC ¶¶ 7, 10, 16.) Under Civil C § 2924, a recital in a trustee’s deed that statutory notice requirements were complied with is “conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without notice.” (See Homestead Savings v. Darmiento (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 424, 434-435.) Moreover, it is unclear how the allegation that Cross-Defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. and Quality Loan Service Corporation breached their duty to provide a clear and perfect title to Warner Creek warrants the dismissal of the Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant. The motion to dismiss is denied.