Strategic Acquisitions, Inc VS Heredia

HG19002938: Strategic Acquisitions, Inc VS Heredia 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other re scope of remand in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 08/19/2026 Rebekah Evenson

Plaintiff REF Apartments, LLC (“REF”) seeks a hearing on its causes of action for ejectment and unjust enrichment. Defendants Gilbert Heredia and Lori Heredia (the “Heredias”) oppose the motion on the grounds that it seeks proceedings beyond entry of the quiet-title judgment as directed by the Court of Appeal. Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the record in this consolidated action, the Court GRANTS the motion.

BACKGROUND This action concerns competing claims to real property located at 1265 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California (the “Property”).

In January 2019, REF’s predecessor in interest, Strategic Acquisitions, Inc., filed a complaint asserting causes of action for quiet title, ejectment, unjust enrichment, and trespass. After REF substituted in as Strategic’s successor, REF filed an amended complaint reasserting the same causes of action. REF’s ejectment and unjust enrichment claims were predicated on a determination that REF was the rightful owner of the Property and that the Heredias’ continued possession without payment was wrongful. The Heredias filed their own complaint seeking to quiet title in the Property, and the two actions were consolidated for trial.

Trial was bifurcated. Phase I addressed only the validity of the underlying trustee’s sale and the parties’ competing quiet-title claims. Phase II was reserved for REF’s remaining causes of action against the Heredias. Following a bench trial on Phase I, the Court quieted title in favor of the Heredias. The parties thereafter submitted a stipulation resolving the Phase II issues. Because title was quieted against REF, the stipulation did not address (and the Court did not adjudicate) REF’s ejectment and unjust enrichment claims that depended on REF being adjudged the owner. On September 18, 2024, the Court entered judgment reflecting the quiet-title disposition and related relief.

REF appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the Court erred in quieting title in favor of the Heredias. The disposition states: “The judgment is reversed. On remand, the trial court is instructed to enter a judgment quieting title in the property in REF’s name.” The opinion did not address REF’s ejectment or unjust enrichment causes of action. The remittitur issued on June 5, 2026, returning jurisdiction to this Court.

REF now asks the Court both to enter the directed quiet-title judgment and to set a Phase II hearing on its ejectment and unjust enrichment claims. The Heredias do not oppose entry of the quiet-title judgment, but they contend that the remittitur’s specific direction limits this Court’s jurisdiction to entry of that judgment and precludes adjudication of REF’s ejectment and unjust enrichment claims.

ANALYSIS HG19002938: Strategic Acquisitions, Inc VS Heredia 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other re scope of remand in Department 24 A reviewing court may “affirm, reverse, or modify any judgment or order appealed from, and may direct the proper judgment or order to be entered, or direct a new trial or further proceedings to be had.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 43.) The reviewing court’s order is contained in its remittitur, “which defines the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to which the matter is returned.” (Griset v.

Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 701.) On remand, the trial court “is empowered to act only in accordance with the direction of the reviewing court; action which does not conform to those directions is void.” (Hampton v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655.) Where a reversal is accompanied by directions requiring specific proceedings, those directions are binding, and “[a]ny material variance from the directions is unauthorized and void.” (Butler v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 979, 982.)

A trial court “may not expand the issues on remand to encompass matters outside the scope of the remittitur merely because the reviewing court has not expressly forbidden the trial court from doing so.” (Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 851, 863.) This general principle, however, does not bar a trial court from deciding issues that were pleaded in the complaint, but that neither the trial court nor the reviewing court resolved, where deciding those issues would not disturb the result the appellate court ordered.

In Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 258, the reviewing court had reversed and directed the trial court to grant a writ petition, but had found it “unnecessary” to reach alternative statutory claims that the petition also alleged and that the trial court had not decided. (Ruegg & Ellsworth, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 268.) On remand, the trial court decided those unresolved claims. The Court of Appeal held the trial court “had jurisdiction to entertain and decide” them, because “neither the trial court nor this court had addressed” them and “determining them would not change the result we ordered, only inform the relief” the petitioner would be entitled to under the writ the court had directed. (Ruegg & Ellsworth, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 261, 265.)

The court distinguished cases such as Hampton, Butler, and Ayyad as involving “obvious departures from remand instructions,” the introduction of a new theory of recovery by the party against whom judgment was ordered, the reopening of a case for trial when directions called for entry of a specific judgment, or the relitigation of an entire case. (Ruegg & Ellsworth, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 266-267.)

In the case at hand, as in Ruegg, the claims that REF seeks to adjudicate on remand were pleaded in the complaint and left undecided. REF’s ejectment and unjust enrichment claims were asserted in the original 2019 complaint and reasserted in REF’s amended complaint. This Court reserved those issues for resolution in a Phase II trial, which was rendered moot because of the Phase I ruling quieting title against REF. The Court of Appeal’s reversal makes those claims relevant again.

Also, as in Ruegg, the resolution of REF’s claims would be consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed in REF’s favor and directed entry of a judgment quieting title in REF’s name. Adjudicating ejectment and unjust enrichment will not disturb that directive — the Court will enter the quiet-title judgment exactly as instructed, and it will also resolve the remaining claims asserted by REF.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

HG19002938: Strategic Acquisitions, Inc VS Heredia 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other re scope of remand in Department 24 The Court is mindful that the remand order specifies entry of judgment quieting title and is silent on REF’s ejectment and unjust enrichment claims. A court “may not expand the issues on remand” merely because the reviewing court did not expressly forbid a given proceeding. (Ayyad, supra.) But adjudicating REF’s reserved claims is not an expansion of the appellate mandate; it is the completion of matters the mandate left untouched.

As in Ruegg, where the Court of Appeal’s remand directing issuance of a writ of mandate did not foreclose further proceedings consistent with that writ, the Court of Appeal’s remand here directing judgment on the quiet title actions should not be construed to preclude trial on pleaded causes of action that are consistent with that result.

ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. REF’s Motion Regarding Scope of Remand is GRANTED.

2. The Court will enter judgment quieting title in the Property in REF’s name, as directed by the Court of Appeal.

3. The Court will adjudicate REF’s previously reserved causes of action for ejectment and unjust enrichment.