DEMURRER
ORDERS
The court deems Trustee’s motion to dismiss (ROA 17) a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
As to the cause of action for delivery of the will, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.
As to all other causes of action, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as procedurally defective. The court makes no findings as to the merits of any claim by any party, and no part of this ruling prohibits Trustee from seeking the relief requested in a procedurally proper manner.
The court declines to rule on Trustee’s evidentiary objections (ROAs 39 and 40), as the court’s decision was not based on any evidence presented by Petitioner.
0532737 Orona – Trust TENTATIVE RULING
Case: Orona – Trust 0532737
Calendar No.: 9
Date: 07/01/2026
DEMURRER (ROA 22)
Respondent Phyllis Orona (“Respondent”) demurrers to the “Verified Petition to Invalidate the Trust Amendments to Set Aside Second Amended Trust of February 24, 2024 and First Amended Trust of June 17, 2022 of Adeline Orona (deceased) Because Of: 1. Undue Influence 2. Lack of Capacity” (ROA 2) (the “O.C. Petition”) filed by Petitioners Pedro Ricardo Orona and Mark Anthony Orona (collectively, “Petitioners”).
Evidentiary Matters
Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 20) is granted. Respondent requests that the court take judicial notice of 1) the Petition filed on 3/4/25 in Los Angeles County; 2) the Petition filed in this court on 11/26/25; and 3) the Request for Dismissal filed on 3/12/26 in Los Angeles County. The exhibits attached to the request are 1) the Notification by Trustee sent by Respondent’s attorney to Petitioners; 2) the Petition filed on 3/4/25 in Los Angeles
County; and 3) the Request for Dismissal filed on 3/12/26 in Los Angeles County. Since the Petition filed in this action is available to the court and all parties, the court takes judicial notice of it even though it is not attached. While the court cannot take judicial notice of the Notification by Trustee separately, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that it is attached as Exhibit C to the Petition filed in Los Angeles County.
Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 32) is granted. Exhibits 2 and 3 consist of the Request for Dismissal filed in Los Angeles County and the Motion for Relief filed in Los Angeles County. While the court cannot take judicial notice of the email attached as Exhibit 1 to the Request for Judicial Notice separately, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that it is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion for Relief.
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?”
The court disregards the Declaration of Respondent (ROA 14) in its entirety; the Declaration of Mary D. Demircift (ROA 18) in its entirety; the Declaration of Louie A. Ruiz (ROA 16), except to the extent that Mr. Ruiz states he met and conferred in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(3)(A) as to the O.C. Petition, and except as to those matters of which the court has taken judicial notice; and the Declaration of Matthew D. A. Scott, except as to those matters of which the court has taken judicial notice.
In ruling on a demurrer, the court may only consider challenges to defects that appear within the “four corners” of the pleading – which includes the pleading, any exhibits attached, and matters of which the court is permitted to take judicial notice. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) The foregoing declarations consist of and rely upon extrinsic evidence that is not proper for the court to consider when ruling on a demurrer.
Pertinent Facts
On 3/4/25, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition to Invalidate Trust in Los Angeles County (the “L.A. Petition”). (Respondent’s RJN, Ex. 2.) The L.A. Petition alleges that Respondent provided Notification by Trustee on 2/4/25. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. C.)
On 11/26/25, Petitioners filed the O.C. Petition. (ROA 2.) The O.C. Petition also alleges that Respondent provided Notification by Trustee on 2/4/25. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
On 3/12/26, Petitioners filed a Request for Dismissal of the L.A. Petition with prejudice. (Respondent’s RJN, Ex. 3; and Petitioner’s RJN, Ex. 2)
On 6/11/26, Petitioners filed a Motion for Relief from Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in Los Angeles County. (Petitioners’ RJN, Ex. 3.) The motion alleges that the dismissal with prejudice was the result of mistake and negligence induced by representations made by Respondent’s counsel that Respondent agreed to proceed with the O.C. Petition. (Id. at p. 8 and Ex. 1.)
Merits of Demurrer
Respondent demurrers to the O.C. Petition on the grounds that it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the time limitations of Probate Code section 16061.8.
Res Judicata
Res judicata and collateral estoppel generally preclude relitigating the same claims and issues after a a dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is the modern name for a common law retraxit, and it means that the plaintiff’s right of action is terminated and may not be revived by the plaintiff in a subsequent action. (Estate of Redfield (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1533, citing Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 813, 820-821.)
Nonetheless, “parties may by agreement limit the legal effect of a dismissal with prejudice so that it would not constitute a retraxit and affect their rights in a later pending action.” (Legendary Investors Group No. 1, LLC v. Nieman (2014) 224 Cal.app.4th 1407, 1411, citations omitted.)
Also, a party may be equitably estopped from raising res judicata as a defense if that party’s conduct induced the dismissal with prejudice. “Whenever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it.” (Evid. Code § 623.)
The court does not need to decide here whether the parties had an agreement concerning the dismissal or whether Respondent’s conduct induced the dismissal. The court needs only to determine whether the O.C. Petition pleads sufficient facts to make such claims. It does not.
Statute of Limitations
In both the L.A. Petition and the O.C. Petition, Petitioners allege that they received the Notification by Trustee on 2/4/25. The O.C. Petition was filed on 11/26/25, well after
the 120-day statute of limitations set forth in Probate Code section 16061.8.
In connection with this demurrer, the parties dispute whether, when, and to whom the trust documents were served with the Notification by Trustee. The O.C. Petition does not allege any facts concerning the service of trust documents, which would trigger the running of the statute of limitations. However, the declaration of Petitioner Pedro Ricardo Orona attached as Exhibit B to the L.A. Petition states that Petitioners received the trust documents on 1/5/25. (Respondent’s RJN, Ex. 2, Ex. B, ¶¶ 16-18).
Contrary to arguments raised by Petitioners, the Relation Back Doctrine applies to amended pleadings within the same action. (See Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 685, 714-715.) The court is not aware of any California authority extending the Relation Back Doctrine to a pleading subsequently filed in the correct forum.
Nonetheless, case law provides that equitable tolling may apply where a case is initially filed in the wrong forum. (Nichols v. Canoga Industries (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 956, 959.)
Moreover, equitable estoppel may also be applied to defeat a statute of limitations defense, and a complaint may be amended to add a plaintiff against whom the statute of limitations has not run.
Once again, the issue here is whether the O.C. Petition alleges sufficient facts to establish equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. It does not.
There is nothing on the face of the O.C. Petition that indicates that it is incapable of amendment. Thus, based on the well-pleaded facts and the matters of which the court takes judicial notice, the court SUSTAINS DEMURRER WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Counsel for Respondent is ordered to serve notice of ruling on this Demurrer.
Petitioners shall file a First Amended Petition within 10 days of service of the notice of ruling, extended for method of service.