Case Number: GC050948    Hearing Date: July 25, 2014    Dept: A

May v IMCO Realty Services

DEMURRER &
MOTION TO DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

Calendar: 15
Case No: GC050948
Date: 7/25/14

MP: Cross-Defendant, Diana May
RP: Cross-Complainant, Adrienne Large

ALLEGATIONS IN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
The Cross-Defendants claim an adverse interest in the Cross-Complainant’s property. The Cross-Complainant brought this action to quiet title in the property.

CAUSES OF ACTION IN FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT:
1) Quiet Title

RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Demurrer to 1st cause of action.
2. Order deeming the Defendant to have admitted the Plaintiff’s requests for admissions
2. Order imposing monetary sanctions of $810 against Defendant.

CHRONOLOGY:
Discovery Served: January 24, 2014
Responses Served: None served.

DISCUSSION:
This hearing concerns the demurrer of Cross-Defendant, Diana May, to the first cause of action for quiet title and also a discovery motion.

First, the Cross-Defendant argues that the Cross-Complainant may not plead that the Cross-Defendant cannot obtain title through adverse possession. The Cross-Defendant is referring to the Court’s order overruling the demurrer to the Complaint in which the Court found that the Plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim for quiet title. This finding that a complaint pleads sufficient facts is not an adjudication of the issue. It is merely a finding that a cause of action states sufficient allegations to constitute the claim.
Second, the Cross-Defendant argues that the Cross-Complainant does not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that her interest is without right. There is no requirement for such specific facts. Instead, under California law, a cause of action to quiet title is pleaded sufficiently when the plaintiff alleges, in simple language, that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession, and that the defendant claims an adverse interest without right. Thornton v. Stevenson (1960) 185 Cal. App. 2d 708, 713.
A review of the First Amended Cross-Complaint reveals that the Cross-Complainant alleges in paragraphs 5 and 6 that Diana May, claims title by adverse possession and that her claim for adverse possession is without right because Diana May took possession by permission and consent of the owner. These allegations are sufficient to plead that the Cross-Defendant, Diana May, claims an adverse interest without right because she had possession by permission and consent.
Third, the Cross-Defendant argues that the Cross-Complainant did not name all parties with an interest in the property. Under CCP section 762.020, when the name of a person with an interest in the property is unknown, the complaint in quiet title must name as parties all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right in the property.
The opposition papers acknowledge this defect and request leave to correct it by amendment.

Accordingly, the Court will sustain the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and grant leave to amend.

2. Motion to Deem Admitted the Requests for Admissions
Diana May also seeks a discovery order that her requests for admissions be deemed admitted by Adrienne Large. Diana May’s attorney, William Declercq, provides facts in his declaration to demonstrate that Adrienne May has not served any responses to Diana May’s requests for admissions.
Under CCP section 2033.280, the Court may order that a party is deemed to have admitted requests for admissions when the party has failed to serve any responses. Since Adrienne May has failed to serve any responses to Diana May’s requests for admissions, the Court will grant the motion and order that Adrienne May is deemed to have admitted the requests for admissions.

Diana May requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions on Adrienna May for the fees and costs that were incurred in filing the motion. Under CCP section 2023.040, a request for sanctions shall, in the notice of motion specify the type of sanction sought. A review of the notice of motion reveals that it includes a “request for sanctions” in the caption of the notice. However, Diana May did not specify the type of sanctions sought, e.g., monetary.
Additionally, when the sanctions sought are monetary sanctions, CCP section 2023.040 requires the request for sanctions to be accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. A review of the motion reveals no declaration setting forth facts supporting any amount of monetary sanctions.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Diana May’s request for sanctions because her request does not comply with CCP section 2023.040.

RULING:
1. SUSTAIN demurrer to quiet title cause of action with leave to amend.
2. ORDER that Adrienne Large is deemed to have admitted Diana May’s requests for admissions; DENY request for sanctions