DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV37102·la·Civil·Property
Hearing in about 1 hourOVERRULED

Dolores Salas v. Eleanor Victoria Johnson, et al.

Demurrer

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
309
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffDolores Salas
DefendantEleanor Victoria Johnson
DefendantEleanor Victoria Salas Correa

Ruling

Discussion

Shioda Langley & Chang, LLP and Heidi M. Cheng bring the instant motion for relief as counsel as to Defendant Jingru Tan. The following documents are properly submitted: Civil Form MC-051 "Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel," Civil Form MC-052 "Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel," and Civil Form MC-053 "Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel."

The motion is GRANTED. It is so ordered. Dated: August, 2026 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 309

DOLORES SALAS vs. ELEANOR VICTORIA JOHNSON, et al. | Case No.: 25STCV37102 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 | Defendant's demurrer is OVERRULED.

On 12/18/2025, Plaintiff Dolores Salas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Eleanor Victoria Johnson aka Eleanor Victoria Salas Correa, alleging: (1) adverse possession; and (2) quiet title.

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support her claims.

As for the first cause of action, the elements that must be satisfied to state a cause of action for adverse possession are: (1) Plaintiff exclusively possessed the property; (2) the possession was continuous and uninterrupted; (3) Possession of the property was open and easily observable, or was under circumstances that would give reasonable notice to Defendant; (4) Plaintiff did not recognize, expressly or by implication, that Defendant had any ownership rights in the land; (5) That Plaintiff claimed the property as her own under color of title or a claim of right; (6) That Plaintiff timely paid all of the taxes assessed on the property during the five-year period. (CACI 4900.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot show that reasonable notice was given to Defendant as he resided in Washington State. However, Plaintiff alleges her control was "open and notorious in that Plaintiff publicly engaged with tenants, tradespeople, and City and State agencies in exercising her management over the Property. (Plaintiff will provide testimonial and documentary evidence of such at time of trial.)" (Complaint P. 26.) This is more than sufficient at the pleading stage. Defendant does not cite any legal authority which could show that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the open and notorious requirement if Defendant does not reside in state.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has not satisfied element five (i.e., that Plaintiff claimed the property as her own under color of title or a claim of right.) Plaintiff alleges that she believed she was the true owner of the Property. This is sufficient at the pleadings stage.

As for the second cause of action, Defendant argues that this claim fails as Plaintiff cannot state a claim for adverse possession. As set forth above, the Court disagrees.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant's demurrer is overruled. It is so ordered. Dated: August, 2026 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share