SANTA CRUZ COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION v. TROUT GULCH, et al.

Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against the following defendants: Laurie Kay Negro, Juan Jose, Valledor as individual and co-trustee of the VN Living Trust, Trout Gulch Crossing, LLC, Cristina Locke, Bayview Hotel in Aptos, LLC, and Betty 41st LLC. Defendants Betty 41st LLC (“Betty’s”) and Cristina Locke filed their own cross-complaint against plaintiff for quiet title and declaratory relief, challenging the RTC’s claim that the Arano Deed conveyed a fee interest rather than an easement.

Trial calendar call is June 18, 2026.

II. MOTIONS

Betty’s applied ex parte for leave to file a second amended, verified cross-complaint or, in the alternative, an order shortening time on a motion for leave to amend. The Court granted the request for shortened time. Betty’s seeks to amend its cross-complaint according to proof per documents and testimony recently provided at RTC’s PMK deposition. Betty’s asserts these documents were requested in September of 2024 but were only just recently produced. Betty’s asserts the proposed amendment is narrow, does not add new claims, parties, or defenses and does not require a trial continuance. According to the application, “[t]he amendment clarifies a statement on information and belief in the Betty 41st pleadings regarding whether the RTC is a ‘successor in interest’ to the original railroad company that acquired an interest in the disputed property.” (App. at p. 2.)

In opposition, RTC argues that the motion is untimely and prejudicial. RTC maintains that Betty’s seeks to “erase multiple admissions from its original verified cross-complaint filed on January 29, 2024, and its first amended verified cross-complaint filed on February 23, 2024.” (Opp. at p. 3.) RTC “urges the Court to consider this request as an attempt to make a finding of fact, relieving Betty of an essential admission it (and the parties) have rested on for years, and not one seeking a simple revision to a complaint.” (Id.)

RTC contends that Betty’s admissions in its original and first amended verified cross-complaints “dispose[d] of the issue of chain of title.” (Opp. at p. 4.) RTC asserts that the proposed amendment contains contradictory admissions which subject the proposed amended verified cross-complaint to demurrer as a sham pleading: Betty’s proposed amended verified cross-complaint still admits that plaintiff is the successor-ininterest to the originating grantor. RTC argues that Betty’s waited too long to bring this motion and that it has made this argument known (regarding the successor in interest and chain of title) since it filed its opposition to RTC’s motion for summary judgment.

Betty’s, in reply, argues that it seeks only a narrow amendment and that its verified answer denied the RTC’s allegations concerning the successor in interest status and so RTC has been on notice that Betty’s had not made an unequivocal concession regarding the chain of title. (Reply at p. 1.) Betty’s maintains that “RTC falsely represented in verified discovery responses

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

that it did not possess the originating deeds Betty requested. Then, after the RTC’s Executive Director admitted at deposition that the RTC possessed deeds for the entire branch line, the RTC still continued to deny the deeds existed. Only after they were ‘caught’ and summary judgment briefing had concluded did the RTC finally produce the documents from a database where they had resided since 2013.” (Reply at p. 1-2.)

Betty’s also filed a motion compel further production of documents numbers 12, 14, 27, 28, and 34. Request number 12 seeks all communications between plaintiff and any predecessor in interest regarding the subject property. Request number 14 seeks all communications between plaintiff and any predecessor in interest regarding the branch line. Request number 27 seeks all documents that reference or relate to the settlement agreement. Request number 28 seeks all communications that refer or relate to the settlement agreement or circumstances regarding the settlement agreement. Request number 34 seeks all internal communications regarding the settlement agreement.

In opposition, RTC contends that numbers 12 and 14 are duplicative of requests that RTC responded to on December 19, 2025, and that “Betty sat on these requests for nearly three months before reaching out to discuss additional documents that it believed RTC had yet to produce.” RTC asserts that it has complied with Betty’s RPD and produced documents, so this motion is moot. In its reply, Betty’s disputes this contention and argues that RTC has not established it has provided all non-privileged responsive documents, that RTC cannot rely upon its March 25 supplemental responses to excuse noncompliance, that RTC’s partial compliance does not excuse full compliance, and that the requests are not overbroad.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to file second amended cross-complaint

The proposed second amended cross-complaint adds the following language: that RTC “contends that it is the successor in interest to the Santa Cruz Railroad Company.” (Proposed First Amended Cross-Complaint “PFACC” at ¶ 2.) Betty’s also seeks to add the following: “[c]ross-complainant is informed and believed that SCCRTRC claims to be a successor-ininterest to the RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT by virtue of a quitclaim deed from Union Pacific Railroad Company recorded with the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s Office on October 12, 2012 as Document No. 2012-0050154.” (PFACC at ¶ 5.) The PFACC seeks to delete the allegation that the easement deed contained a provision for a right of way easement for a railroad that was provided to RTC’s successor in interest, the Santa Cruz Railroad Company, by Jose Arano.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

RTC claims this amendment unfairly prejudices them because it was relying upon Betty’s statement in its cross-complaint to establish that RTC’s predecessor in interest was Santa Cruz Railroad Company.

“It is well established that leave to amend a complaint is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court ... .” (Garcia v. Roberts (2009)173 Cal.App.4th 900, 909.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 473 gives trial courts discretion to allow a party to amend his or her pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice,’ while section 576 states that such leave to amend may be granted even after the commencement of trial.” (Id.)

RTC seeks to quiet title. By statute, the elements required in a complaint for quiet title are: (1) a description of the property, “(2) [t]he title of the plaintiff as to which a determination is sought and the basis of the title. If the title is based on adverse possession, the complaint must allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession. [Citation.] The plaintiff may assert any interest in the property, not merely a fee or other freehold interest. [Citation.] (3) The claims adverse to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought. [Citation.]

If the plaintiff admits the validity of an adverse claim, the complaint must so state. (C.C.P. 762.060(c).) (4) The date as of which the determination is sought. If the determination is sought as of a date other than the date the complaint is filed, the complaint must include a statement of the reasons why a determination as of that date is sought. (C.C.P. 761.020(d).) (5) A prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims. (C.C.P. 761.020(e); see C.E.B., Real Property Remedies and Damages 2d, §7.30 et seq.).” (5 Witkin Cal.

Proc Plead § 662.)

The Court does not find RTC would be prejudiced by the proposed amended crosscomplaint which does not add new claims or parties. RTC already must prove its quiet title cause of action, which includes a sufficient showing of the basis for the claimed title as a predecessor in interest. “[J]udicial admissions involve facts, not legal theories or conclusions.” (Stroud v. Tunzi (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 377, 384.) “[N]ot every factual allegation in a complaint automatically constitutes a judicial admission.

Otherwise, a plaintiff would conclusively establish the facts of the case by merely alleging them, and there would never be any disputed facts to be tried. Rather, a judicial admission is ordinarily a factual allegation by one party that is admitted by the opposing party. The factual allegation is removed from the issues in the litigation because the parties agree as to its truth. Thus, facts to which adverse parties stipulate are judicially admitted.” (Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.)

It is not clear that the predecessor in interest issue was stipulated to or conceded by defendants nor that it is even a could be stipulated to as a fact as opposed to a legal theory. Therefore, the motion to file a second amended cross-complaint is granted. Betty’s is directed to file the proposed second amended cross-complaint within two days of the date of this hearing given the

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 10, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

impending trial date. RTC shall file its answer by June 15, 2026. If RTC does not file a new answer by that date, the answer it filed March 19, 2024 in response to the first amended crosscomplaint will be deemed the operative response to the second amended cross-complaint.

B. Motion to compel

It is not clear from the moving papers, the opposition and reply what outstanding discovery issues remain. RTC states it has complied with the requests and the motion is moot. “[I]t has provided any and all responsive, non-privileged records to Betty at the time of the filing of this Opposition.” Further, “RTC also expects to serve Betty with a privilege log well before Betty files its reply papers.” (Opp. at p. 7.)

If RTC has produced all responsive documents, it needs to also serve (if it has not done so) a verified statement of compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, subdivision (a). “The party to whom the CCP § 2031.010 demand is directed must respond separately to each item in the demand by one of the following” an agreement to comply, a statement that the party lacks the ability to comply or objections to all or part of the demand. (Weil & Brown Civil Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2025) § 8:1469.)

The response must be filed under oath by the party to whom it is directed. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.250.) When a party asserts the claim or privilege or work product, “the objecting party must provide ‘sufficient factual information’ to enable other parties to evaluate the meris of the claim, ‘including, if necessary, a privilege log.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at §8:1474.5.) RTC also needs to serve a privilege log as it indicated it would do. RTC is to comply within 10 days of the date of this hearing.

The Court declines to award sanctions.

BETTY 41st, LLC’s OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF NGO

1-4. Overruled.

BETTY 41st, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

A. Copy of Declaration of Laurie Negro in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Denied; they Court does not need to take notice of the contents of its own file.