Curtis Jackson, et al. v. Jenero Jefferson, et al.

The court limits the testimony to written, instead of oral, examination. (See CCP Sec.2025.420(b)(6).)

PTSD along with blindness are recognized disabilities under the ADA and would entitle a deponent to accommodation under Rules of Court, Rule. 1.100 (See also Gropen v. Superior Court (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1068.)

The court notes the familial relationship between Defendant George Lopez and Dr. Lopez. However, Dr. Lopez notes he is the treating physician for Defendant George Lopez. (See Exh. 1.) Moreover, a family doctor would have knowledge of a patient's overall medical conditions including cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions as well as depression, anxiety, insomnia and phonophobia.

The court also notes the photograph from 2022. However, as noted by Defendant, a photograph from four years ago is not an indication of Defendant George Lopez's condition now to sit down for an oral deposition.

Based on the foregoing, the motion for protective order is GRANTED. However, defendants should be aware that defendant George Lopez will be precluded from offering any live testimony at trial, given his representations about his health.

II. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Plaintiff Juan Muniz moves this court for an order compelling Defendant George Lopez and an order to set the deposition within five days from the date this motion is heard on the grounds Defendant George Lopez is a named defendant and necessary party with crucial information relating to the elements Plaintiff is required to prove in this matter.

Based on the discussion above, the court denies the motion to compel deposition of Defendant George Lopez.

JENERO JEFFERSON, ET AL.

DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ROBBINS' DEMURRER TO CURTIS JACKSON'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date of Hearing: August 26, 2026

Trial Date: None set

Department: 529

Case No.: 24STCV24039

Moving Party: Defendant Timothy Robbins

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Curtis Jackson

Meet and Confer: Yes. Sinclar Declaration.

BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2024, Plaintiffs Curtis Jackson and Shannon Imani Jackson filed a complaint against Defendants Jenero Jefferson, Charity Prime Realty, Mindful Growth Foundation, Nationwide Real Estate Executives and Timothy Robbins for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, elder abuse quiet title, declaratory relief and injunction.

On July 21, 2026, Plaintiff Curtis Jackson filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants for Financial Elder Abuse.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Timothy Robbins' Demurrer to Curtis Jackson's Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant Timothy Robbins requests this court take judicial notice of certain documents including the following matters: (1) the Verified Complaint filed by plaintiffs Ashanti Smith and Curtis Jackson against, inter alia, defendants Jenero Jefferson, Charity Prime Realty, Inc., and Mindful Growth Foundation, in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV24076 (Exh. A); (2) the 2019 Complaint was filed on July 10, 2019; (3) the Grant Deed recorded on February 15, 2019 as Inst. No. 20190141156 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (Exh.

B); (4) the Deed of Trust recorded on February 15, 2019 as Inst. No. 20190141157 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (Exh. C); (5) the Deed of Trust recorded on February 15, 2019 as Inst. No. 20190141159 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (Exh. 5); (6) the Grant Deed recorded on March 15, 2019 as Inst. No. 20190233340 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (Exh. E); (7) the Grant Deed recorded on May 31, 2019 as Inst. No. 20190502638 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (Exh.

E); and (8) the Grant Deed recorded on May 21, 2021 as Inst. No. 20210822188 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (Exh. G).

The court GRANTS the request for judicial notice.

discussion

Defendant Timothy Robbins demurs to the sole cause of action in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Financial Elder Abuse. Defendant Robbins demurs to the Complaint on the grounds Plaintiffs' claims are untimely and the amended complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a valid cause of action for elder abuse against Defendant Robbins.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

"To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged." (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012)¿ 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.)

A demurrer "does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law." (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)¿

Defendant argues the allegations that Plaintiff did not discover the alleged fraud until he obtained a title report in May of 2021 is contrary to Plaintiff's allegations in a prior proceeding, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV24076.

Defendant explains at the last hearing on the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, prior counsel for Plaintiff notified the court that she could not continue to represent plaintiff Jackson, because she had been party to a lawsuit involving him and the exact same Triplex.

Based on the prior action, Defendant contends Plaintiff admits that Plaintiff "discovered" the alleged wrong more than four years before he filed in the instant action. Specifically, the 2019 Action alleges Mr. Jackson sued Mr. Jefferson and two of the entities for multiple counts of elder abuse, undue influence, fraud in the inducement, rescission of contracts, quiet title, declaratory relief, and professional negligence.

Because the statute of limitations lock beings to run once the plaintiff had suspicion of wrongdoing, Defendant contends the financial elder abuse claim is time barred. (See Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 1103, 1110 holding "[u]nder the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.")

The court notes the opposition is untimely. Counsel states the court should consider the untimely opposition as counsel was busy concluding a trial in another case. The court declines to consider the untimely opposition. The opposition was filed two days before the hearing. Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the statutes, rules and procedures governing this litigation despite calendaring management issues.

The court finds the May 2021 discovery date alleged in the Second Amended Complaint does not satisfy the specificity required by the demurrer standard. (See Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1430 holding "[i]n assessing the sufficiency of the allegations of delayed discovery, the court places the burden on the plaintiff to 'show diligence'; 'conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.'")

Currently, the 2019 complaint's allegations demonstrate that Jackson knew--or at minimum suspected with specificity--the following facts as of July 2019: that Jefferson had presented Jackson with a title document transferring 100% of the triplex to Jefferson's entity, when Jackson believed he was adding Jefferson only as a managerial partner (Sinclair Decl., Exh. A, P.P.77-78); that Jefferson had taken out a $250,000 mortgage without Jackson's knowledge or consent (Sinclair Decl., Exh. A, P.80); and that the transaction involved deceptive title transfers and encumbrances affecting the triplex's ownership and equity (Sinclair Decl., Exh. A, P.P.100-101.)

However, the current SAC alleges Jackson did not reasonably understand that defendants had structured transactions materially different from the refinance represented to him. (SAC P.36.) While the SAC sufficiently alleges the time and manner of discovery, it does not allege with specificity the inability to discover the conduct earlier despite diligence. The SAC does not explain why a reasonable investigation in July 2019 would not have uncovered the factual basis for a claim against Robbins specifically.

Plaintiff is given one more opportunity to allege facts to bring a claim against Defendant Robbins within the statute of limitations.

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Case Number: 24STCV26351

Hearing Date: August 26, 2026

Dept: 529

TALI SIGALUS VS MARTIN K. P. CHIANG, ET AL.