CARMONA VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

Plaintiff. (BMS Decl. at ¶ 6, Ex. 3.) Because the action has been dismissed, Plaintiff cannot establish the probable validity of her real property claim.

The motion is granted.

Defendants to give notice.

9. WEBER VS. MORADO 2025-01511904 DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants Corinne Morado; Gencare Connects, Inc.; and Daian Corporation’s Demurrer to the Complaint is DENIED as moot. “The filing of the first amended complaint rendered the defendant's demurrer moot since an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.” (Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054, (cleaned up).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 30, 2026. Thus, the Complaint ceased to function as a pleading and the Demurrer to the Complaint is moot.

10. CARMONA VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. 2025-01498836 1. DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT 2. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from the Complaint is DENIED as moot.

“The filing of the first amended complaint rendered the defendant's demurrer moot since an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.” (Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054, (cleaned up).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 29, 2026. Thus, the Complaint ceased to function as a pleading and the Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from the Complaint is moot.

11. MARC REVETTA AS A BENEFICIARY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF BEHALF OF THE REVETTA FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 16, 2020 VS. FREDRICKSON 2025-01516999

1. DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Defendant Christine Fredrickson’s Demurrer to the second and third causes of action alleged by Plaintiffs in their Complaint is OVERRULED.

Second Cause of Action for Financial Elder Abuse: Defendant contends the second cause of action fails because (1) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a cause of action for financial elder abuse; (2) Plaintiffs have filed two separate lawsuits that cover the same primary right, and (3) probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the claim.

First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a cause of action for financial elder abuse because Decedent and Defendant were domestic partners and Plaintiffs cannot prosecute a financial abuse cause of action based on a challenge to the domestic partnership. The Complaint does not seek to dissolve or adjudicate the domestic partnership but alleges that Defendant’s filing of a domestic partnership itself was a wrongful act undertaken by caregiver to obtain property from a dependent adult. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that “after Caregiver Fredrickson asked M. Revetta if Russ Revetta should be placed in hospice, Caregiver Fredrickson prepared a ‘domestic partnership’ and filed it with the California Secretary of State, representing that she and Russ Revetta were ‘domestic partners.’ ” (Complaint, ¶ 30.) The Complaint further alleges that “Caregiver Fredrickson’s action in filing a ‘domestic partnership’ violates Probation Code section 21380, subdivision (a)(4), constitutes a fraud on dependent adult R. Revetta and his family, and was filed for the sole purpose of avoiding the presumption of fraud and undue influence of caregivers who become a beneficiary of their client’s estate as set forth in Probate Code section 21380. Caregiver Fredrickson’s attempt to amend the Revetta Family Trust dated December 16, 2020 to provide that she was to be given 25% of R. Revetta’s $1.3 Million dollar estate which equates to $325,000 and then file a ‘domestic partnership’ in an attempt to convert her from ‘Caregiver’ of R. Revetta for 10 years to the ‘Spouse’ of R. Revetta violates the law, is fraudulent and the kind of despicable, unconscionable misconduct that warrants punitive damages.” (Complaint, ¶ 32.) Therefore, Plaintiffs have standing to allege the second cause of action.

Second, Defendant argues the Financial Elder Abuse cause of action involves the same primary right as Defendant’s Probate Petition to Compel Redress for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (“Probate Petition”) and is therefore subject to abatement.