Cannon vs. Crown Point Condos No. 2

Defendants to give notice.

Upcoming CMC & OSC

In light of Defendants’ response to the Complaint (i.e., the above-discussed demurrer), the court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause set for 8/31/26.

As the action is not yet at-issue, the court CONTINUES the Case Management Conference to December 7, 2026, at 10:00 am in Dept. W8.

All appearing parties SHALL file and serve a new timely case management statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369.

Plaintiff to give notice.

17 Cannon vs. Crown Demurrer Point Condos No. 2 The court SUSTAINS in part, and OVERRULES in part, Defendants CROWN POINT CONDOS NO. 2, SHERRI CHAPMAN and CHAD BRUNOCHELLI’s demurrer to Plaintiff CINDY CANNON’S First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

Specifically, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the first, fourth, eighth, nineth and tenth causes of action, and OVERRULES the demurrer to the fifth cause of action (cancellation of instrument). Plaintiff is granted 15 days leave to amend as to the first and fourth causes of action only.

The FAC asserts the following causes of action:

1. Preliminary and permanent injunctions 2. Breach of fiduciary duty 3. Fraudulent concealment 4. Quiet title

5. Cancellation of instrument 6. Declaratory relief 7. Negligence 8. Defamation-libel 9. Defamation-slander 10. False light invasion of privacy 11. Accounting.

Defendants generally demur to the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, nineth and tenth causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).) Defendants demur to the fourth, fifth, eighth, nineth and tenth causes of action based on uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).)

1st C/A (injunctive relief) - SUSTAIN

Moving Defendants demur to the first cause of action for preliminary and permanent injunction on the basis that this is not a cause of action, but rather an equitable remedy. In Korean American Legal Advocacy Foundation v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 376, 398-399 the court held, “A preliminary injunction is an interim remedy designed to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits. [Citation.] It is not, in itself, a cause of action. Thus, a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted.” Similarly, in Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 967, 984-985, the court held: “Correctly, the respondents state that a request for injunctive relief is not a cause of action. [citation] Therefore, we cannot let this “cause of action” stand.”

Plaintiff does not contest these points but contends that in a Second Amended Complaint that she intends to file, she will restructure her claim for an injunction as an equitable remedy.

Accordingly, the court sustains the demurrer as to this cause of action, with leave to amend.

4th C/A (quiet title) - SUSTAIN

Section 761.020 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint asserting a quiet title be verified and

include certain information (e.g., description of the property and if real property, include both the legal description and street address/common designation; title of the plaintiff and the basis for the title; the adverse claims; the date a determination is sought).

Plaintiff’s FAC is verified but deficient. For example, while an attachment to the FAC suggests that the property at issue is located at 179 McKnight Drive, Laguna Beach, CA, the FAC does not provide the unit number for the condominium at issue or the legal description of the property. (See FAC, ¶ 3 [stating Plaintiff is “the sole legal owner of a condominium unit in a 12-unit comlpex”].) Further, while the FAC alleges that Plaintiff is the sole legal owner (FAC, ¶¶ 3, 69), the FAC fails to state what type of title Plaintiff possesses or the basis for that title. Further, it’s unclear from the FAC what ownership interest Plaintiff is alleging that the individual defendants are asserting.

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the fourth cause of action with leave to amend.

5th C/A (cancellation of instrument) - OVERRULE

Section 3412 of the Civil Code provides, “A written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled.”

“To prevail on a claim to cancel an instrument, a plaintiff must prove (1) the instrument is void or voidable due to, for example, fraud; and (2) there is a reasonable apprehension of serious injury including pecuniary loss or the prejudicial alteration of one's position. [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1193-1194 [internal citations omitted]).

The FAC alleges that Defendants caused to be recorded "Superseding CC&Rs" and other documents affecting the title to the condominium project, and that these instruments are void or voidable because they were created and recorded by entities that were either

terminated by the Francise Tax Board or formed in violation of California law. Plaintiff also alleges that there is a reasonable apprehension that if these instruments are left outstanding, they will cause serious injury to Plaintiff by clouding her title and diminishing her property value. (FAC, ¶¶ 72, 73.)

Moving Defendants argue that this cause of action fails because it is duplicative of the quiet title cause of action, citing Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, which held, “Where a complaint seeks to quiet title to real property and cancel an instrument and both claims are based on the same facts, it is said that the cancellation claim is incidental to the claim to quiet title such that the action asserts only one claim.” (Id. at 523.) The court went on to state that quieting title “is the relief granted once a court determines that title belongs in plaintiff.

In determining that question, where a contract exists between the parties, the court must first find something wrong with that contract. In other words, in such a case, the plaintiff must show he has a substantive right to relief before he can be granted any relief at all. Plaintiff must show a right to rescind before he can be granted the right to quiet his title.” (Id. at 523-524.)

Deutsche Bank National Trust is distinguishable here. Deutsche Bank National Trust deals with an appeal of a trial court’s order granting summary judgment, a ruling that occurred after a default judgment was reversed in a related action. The default judgment was found to be void and the summary judgment concerned the impact of the void default judgment and whether defendants were entitled to bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer status.

The instant motion is not for summary judgment, but is for a demurrer. The court of appeal discussed “the difference between quiet title relief and cancellation of instruments ... to show that defendants cannot rely on the quiet title statutes.” (Id. at 523.)

Here, we are not dealing with a summary judgment motion or an issue of whether a party can rely on the quiet title statutes. Rather, we are dealing with a demurrer to a cause of action for cancellation of instruments, and the

demurer to the quiet title action is sustained (as explained above).

The court finds that the FAC adequately pleads a cause of action for cancellation of instruments. The FAC alleges that Defendants recorded the superseding CC&R’s and alleges the basis as to why they should be rescinded (the HOA was terminated/a defunct entity at the time of the recording, among other reasons). The FAC also pleads that there is a reasonable apprehension of serious injury, including the restricted use of her property pursuant to the superseding CC&R’s and diminished property value. As Plaintiff notes, a plaintiff is permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent theories or remedies. (See, e.g., Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402.)

Accordingly, the court OVERRULES the demurrer to the fifth cause of action.

8th, 9th and 10th C/As (defamation, invasion of privacy) - SUSTAIN

In its opposing papers, Plaintiff states that it is “voluntarily omitting” the eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action. (Opp’n Br. at p. 2, lines 5-9.)

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to these causes of action without leave to amend.

Moving Defendants to give notice.

18 Hernandez vs. Demurrer Ayres-Orange, L.P. Motion to Strike

1. Demurrer

The court OVERRULES in part and SUSTAINS in part, Defendant AYRES-ORANGE, L.P.’ demurrer to the Complaint of Plaintiffs RICHARD HERNANDEZ and RUBI HERNANDEZ, by and through her guardian ad litem

31