Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 07/01/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 07/01/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: “Interested and Specially Appearing Party” Tonia M. Smith’s (“Smith”) demurrer to selfrepresented Plaintiff Soroya Rigor’s fifth amended complaint is dropped.

As conceded by the moving papers, Smith is not a party to the present action. Instead, Smith asserts that she is the record title owner of real property as to which Plaintiff seeks to quiet title. Smith challenges Plaintiff’s quiet title claims because Plaintiff failed to name her as a defendant as required by CCP § 762.010. Smith also argues that any quiet title claim is barred by the statute of limitations and also because Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing Plaintiff has any interest in the subject real property.

As noted, Smith is not a party to this action. A demurrer may not be brought by a nonparty to an action. (See CCP § 430.10 [“The party against whom a complaint or crosscomplaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30.”].) Until such time as Smith is a party to this action, Smith has no standing other than to bring a motion to intervene pursuant to CCP § 387. Code of Civil Procedure section 387(c) provides that “[a] nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene ” (CCP § 387 [emphasis edded].) “Whether permissive or mandatory, a petition to seek leave is required; without permission from the court, a party lacks any standing to the action.” (Lohnes v. Astron Computer Products (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1153.)

To the extent Smith intends to attempt intervention, she is reminded that a motion to intervene must be brought to the Presiding Judge in Department 47 per Local Rule 1.05(B). Such motion type may not be brought in Department 53.

The demurrer is therefore dropped.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.