CALCAP INCOME FUND I, LLC vs PARK, et al.

25CV123936: CALCAP INCOME FUND I, LLC vs PARK, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint; filed by KWANG SOOK PARK (Defendant) + CRS# 909256483328 in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 07/13/2026 Joscelyn Jones

The Demurrer filed by KWANG SOOK PARK, YONG SOP PARK on 12/15/2025 is Sustained with Leave to Amend.

The Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer filed by KWANG SOOK PARK, YONG SOP PARK on 12/15/2025 is Granted in Part.

The Court rules as follows on the Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by Defendants Kwang Sook Park and Yong Sook Park (collectively, “Park”):

As a preliminary issue, Defendants’ Notice of Demurrer states that Defendants are demurring to Plaintiff’s First, Second, and Sixth Causes of Action. To the extent that Defendants’ briefs addressed other causes of action, the Court disregards any such discussion because it is beyond the scope of the issues specified in the Notice of Demurrer.

The demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Adverse Possession is OVERRULED. Plaintiff alleges it paid all taxes assessed on the “Encroachment Area”. (See First Amended Complaint, paragraphs 19 and 23.) Whether that is true cannot be determined on a demurrer, but instead depends on factual and evidentiary issues to be determined at a later stage of the case. At this stage of the case, the Court will not concern itself with how Plaintiff may prove that it paid all taxes levied and assessed on the “Encroachment Area”, separate and apart from (or in addition to”) the taxes levied and assessed on Plaintiff’s own property located at 5612 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Easement by Prescription is SUSTAINED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff cannot obtain a prescriptive easement “which as a practical matter completely prohibits the true owner from using its land”. (See, e.g., Harrison v. Welch (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1092-1093.) A prescriptive easement that allows Plaintiff to maintain an apartment building on a portion of Defendants’ land would do just that. (Id.) Plaintiff is given leave to amend to allege a claim for prescriptive easement (if applicable) that would not completely prohibit Defendants from the use of any portion of their land.

The demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action for “Declaratory Relief - Permanent Injunction Against Removal of Encroachments” is SUSTAINED. Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of action. (See McDowell v. Watson (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1159.) Plaintiff is given leave to amend to seek injunctive relief as a remedy for one of Plaintiff’s other, substantive causes of action (e.g., the Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief.)

The Court rules as follows on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended 25CV123936: CALCAP INCOME FUND I, LLC vs PARK, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint; filed by KWANG SOOK PARK (Defendant) + CRS# 909256483328 in Department 19 Complaint:

The motion is GRANTED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to Items Nos. 1-2 in the Notice of Motion, consistent with the discussion above.

The motion is DENIED as to Item No. 3 in the Notice of Motion, for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(a). Item No. 3 does not specify what portion(s) of the First Amended Complaint Defendants seek to strike.

The motion is MOOT as to Item No. 4 in the Notice of Motion. The First Amended Complaint does not assert a claim for attorneys’ fees.

The Court will prepare the order. Defendants shall serve Notice of Entry of Order on Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall have 10 days to amend, running from service of Notice of Entry of Order on Plaintiff by Defendants. Defendants shall have 10 days thereafter to respond.