Application for judgment under CCP 764.010
Code section 3412 claim is futile as Cross-Complainant lacks standing to assert it. (See, e.g., Opposition at 5:21-24.) They further contend that all of the proposed claims against Francis Ford Coppola are barred by the relevant statute(s) of limitations. (See, e.g., id. at 12:9, et seq.)
While the Court is authorized to deny a motion for leave to file an amended pleading on grounds of futility, in the Court’s experience, the better approach is to permit the amendment and address arguments regarding deficiencies therein in the context of demurrers, and/or motions to strike.
Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED.
Saint John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Faith Lutheran 26CV000538 Church of Napa
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 764.010
APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Plaintiff St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (“Plaintiff”) applies, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010, 1 for entry of judgment quieting title to the real property commonly known as 2790 Kilburn Avenue, Napa, California 94558, Napa County Assessor’s Parcel No. 004-081-020. Plaintiff so moves on the grounds that Plaintiff has established each and every element of adverse possession under California law.
Pursuant to section 764.010, “[t]he court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff's title against the claims of all the defendants. The court shall not enter judgment by default but shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff's title and hear such evidence as may be offered respecting the claims of any of the defendants, other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in the complaint. The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law.”
Plaintiff attempts to establish Plaintiff’s title via adverse possession by the Declaration of Thomas F. Carey and Declaration of Michael Schmid. Despite the fact that no opposition has been filed or is expected,2 and the fact that default was entered against Defendant Faith Lutheran Church of Napa (“Defendant”) on June 26, 2026, California courts require an evidentiary proveup hearing with live testimony and other admissible evidence to determine Plaintiff’s title.
“Such a hearing is mandatory: ‘[A] quiet title judgment requires a hearing in open court. Although section 764.010 does not mandate oral argument—and we do not hold oral argument is necessary, though it may be helpful—the statute requires examining plaintiff’s title and hearing defendant’s evidence ‘in all cases.’ ... [¶] The court clearly acts as a fact finder and adjudicates issues when it determines whether to quiet title in the plaintiff.... [T]he statute does not explicitly 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted. 2 See Mem., 3:1-2 and Carey Decl., ¶ 6.
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?”
permit evidentiary objections, [but] we believe this feature is implicit in the portion of the statute that ‘require[s] evidence of plaintiff’s title’ and requires the court to hear defendant’s evidence. If evidence is to be received, the court must fulfill its gatekeeper function, and that would require considering objections. The court must decide whether the evidence is sufficient in any event, because it must render judgment ‘in accordance with the evidence....’ ... Allowing objections from each side assists the court in making this determination.
Finally, a quiet title judgment clearly involves a matter of considerable significance to the parties. If quiet title is the sole cause of action, the hearing is, in effect, the trial of the entire matter.... [I]t warrants an open-court hearing.” (Nickell v. Matlock (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 934, 944-45, quoting Harbour Vista, LLC v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1507-08.)
“All proof that plaintiff would have had to present at trial, however, must be presented at that hearing; a declaration or other summary procedure will not be permitted. Live witnesses must testify, and complete authentication of the underlying real property records is essential.’” (Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.) In clarifying Yeung’s holding, Nickell v. Matlock (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 934, 947 states “notwithstanding a defendant’s default in a quiet title action, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to judgment in its favor but must prove its case in an evidentiary hearing with live witnesses and any other admissible evidence.”
Thus, Plaintiff’s appearance is required for an evidentiary prove up hearing.
Luis Fernandez v. Sager Automotive Group 26CV000674
PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DISMISS PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS; AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Defendant Sager Automotive Group (SAG) moves, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2, for an order compelling plaintiff to arbitrate all individual claims against Defendants, to the extent he has any, arising from or associated with his employment with Defendants, including but expressly not limited to the individual claims (including any individual PAGA claims that may hereafter be asserted in this or any other forum) raised by Plaintiff in his Complaint.
4