Cross-Defendant Casey Rasmussen’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAC-C); Cross-Defendant Casey Rasmussen’s Motion to Strike the First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAC-C)
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR JULY 24, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.
19. S-CV-0056677 RASMUSSEN, CASEY v. BURNS, CHRISTA
Cross-Defendant Casey Rasmussen’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross- Complaint (FAC-C)
Preliminary Matters
As an initial matter, the court will consider the substance of the demurrer. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40(a) is permissive in nature, stating that a demurrer may be filed within 30 days after the filing of the complaint. (McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 280.) Further, the court has discretion to consider a demurrer, even an untimely filed one. (Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.)
Ruling on Request for Judicial Notice
Cross-defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452.
Ruling on Demurrer
The demurrer is sustained in part with leave to amend.
The first cause of action for quiet title is deficiently pleaded as it does not plead sufficient facts to allege the date in which cross-complaint seeks a determination as to title. (Code of Civil Procedure section 761.020(d).)
The second cause of action for fraudulent concealment fails to plead the level of sufficiency necessary to support such a claim. Specifically, the allegations do not sufficiently allege cross-defendant concealed a material fact; that cross-defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud; or that the cross-complainant was unaware of the material fact and would not have acted if she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact. (Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158.)
The third and fourth causes of action for intentional misrepresentation are deficiently pleaded as cross-complainant does not allege sufficiently specific facts of an intent to induce reliance or actual and justifiable reliance. (
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?”
PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR JULY 24, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.
19. S-CV-0056677 RASMUSSEN, CASEY v. BURNS, CHRISTA
The seventh cause of action for slander of title is deficiently pleaded as it falls outside the three-year statute of limitations and there are insufficient facts pleaded to allege tolling of the statute of limitations. (Code of Civil Procedure section 338(g).)
The ninth and tenth causes of action for rescission cannot stand as currently pleaded. Rescission is a remedy available to a contracting party, based upon a breach of contract or fraud, where that party no longer desires to keep the contract alive. (Wong v. Stoler (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1384.) The underlying fraud claims related to the remedies sought in these two claims are deficiently pleaded and do not provide sufficient factual allegations to support either remedy.
The twelfth cause of action fails to sufficiently allege facts regarding the receipt of stolen property. (Penal Code section 496(a).)
The demurrer is overruled as to the eighth cause of action. The allegations in this claim, when the FAC-C is read as a whole, are sufficient to allege constructive trust.
The demurrer is overruled as to the eleventh cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The allegations in this claim, when the FAC-C is read as a whole, are sufficient to allege the claim.
The demurrer is overruled as to the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth cause of action for declaratory relief. The allegations within each claim, when read in conjunction with the FAC-C as a whole, are sufficient to allege the claims.
The second amended cross-complaint shall be filed and served by August 21, 2026.
Cross-Defendant Casey Rasmussen’s Motion to Strike the First Amended Cross- Complaint (FAC-C)
The motion to strike is granted in its entirety with leave to amend. The FAC-C does not allege sufficient facts to support the punitive damages or treble damages.
The second amended cross-complaint shall be filed and served by August 21, 2026.
///
PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings