Demurrer to First Amended Complaint
to any person residing in the state of California who is 65 years of age or older. (Id., § 15610.27.)
The allegation that Dona fraudulently obtained Plaintiff’s signature on a grant deed is sufficient to show the taking of real property.
Statute of Limitations The FAC alleges that the wrongdoing occurred in 1996 and Plaintiff was on notice of his causes of action when his mother sold the property in 1996 and another family moved into the home. The conclusory allegation that Plaintiff did not discover the fraud until January 20, 2026 does not meet the burden of pleading the delayed discovery rule. Rather, Plaintiff must specifically plead facts showing when and how the discovery occurred and why he could not have discovered it sooner by exercising reasonable diligence.
A plaintiff generally must bring a claim within the limitations period after a cause of action accrues, i.e., when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806.) “An important exception to the general rule of accrual is the ‘discovery rule,’ which postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discovery, the cause of action.” (Id. at p. 807.) “A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she ‘has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for its elements.’” (Ibid.) “Under the discovery rule, suspicion of one or more of the elements of a cause of action, coupled with knowledge of any remaining elements, will generally trigger the statute of limitations period.” (Ibid.)
“In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a] plaintiff whose complaint show son its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’” (Id. at p. 808.) “In assessing the sufficiency of the allegations of delayed discovery, the court places the burden on the plaintiff to ‘show
diligence’; ‘conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.’” (Ibid.)
Failure to Join Indispensable Parties The FAC fails to name the current owners of the property, who are bona fide third party purchasers. Because the FAC seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the current owners from encumbering the property, those owners are interested parties who must be joined. Further, in a quiet title action, the plaintiff shall name as defendants all persons having adverse claims to the title. (Ranch at the
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff shall have 20 days leave to amend.
Counsel for Defendant Dona Lee Lober to give notice.
111 Mana Investment Co. v. Shawn M. Olson (“Moving Counsel”) moves to be Nguyen, 2022- relieved as Counsel of Record for Defendants, Tony H. 01287145 Nguyen and Susan Thanh Ngoc Le Nugyen.
The motion is unopposed.
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d) states, in part: “The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case.”
In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e) states, in part: “The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the court may set one and specify the date in the order.”
Moving Counsel has stated a basis for permissive withdrawal under Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. (ROA 43, 45, Judicial Council Form MC-052, Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, ¶ 2.) Moving Counsel has also utilized the Judicial Council Forms (MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053), and has satisfied the notice and declaration requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. However, Moving Counsel has not lodged any proposed orders and has not shown proof of service of the same on the clients and all parties that have appeared in this action. Consequently, the motions to be relieved as counsel are DENIED, without prejudice.
Moving Counsel to give notice.
112 Monarch Crest v. Sinai Plaintiff Monarch Crest, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves Investment, 2023- pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 for 01319977 sanctions in the amount of $9,282.20 “on the grounds that Defendants engaged in frivolous and bad faith actions in filing their second Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication months after the deadline to do so had passed and they had failed to obtain or seek leave of court to file a second motion for summary judgment.”
Defendants Marguerite Abdelmalek and Evergreen Realty Partners, Inc., dba Realty One Group West (“Defendants”) oppose the motion.
First, the Court finds that Plaintiff complied with the 21 day safe harbor period prior to bringing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(B).)
Next, the Court finds that, while the motion for summary judgment was frivolous given the express terms of the parties’ stipulation, there is insufficient evidence to find that the motion was brought in bad faith. (Campbell v. Cal-Gard Sur. Services, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 563, 573–574 [“To impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, there must be a showing that” the moving party’s “action was meritless or frivolous and that it was pursued in bad