MANN vs MANN, et al.

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 09/17/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Hardip Singh Mann (“Hardip”) and Harminder K. Mann’s (“Harminder”) (collectively “Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiff Mandinderjit Kaur Mann’s (“Plaintiff”) first amended complaint (“FAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff alleges that she is the Executor of the Estate for Decedent, Ravinder Singh Mann (“Decedent”). (FAC, ¶ 7.) In November 2000, Defendants purchased property located at 7212 Alpine Frost Dr, Sacramento (“Property”). (FAC, ¶ 8.) In June 2019, Harminder conveyed her 1⁄2 interest in the Property to Decedent. (FAC, ¶ 10.) Decedent then convened his 1⁄2 interest in the Property to himself and Hardip as joint “owners” with right of survivorship. (FAC, ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff alleges that due to certain circumstances, a joint tenancy was not created. Rather, the conveyance is a tenancy in common by default. (FAC, ¶¶ 11-15.) Plaintiff alleges that since the property was a tenancy in common, when Decedent died, he still owned a 1⁄4 interest in the Property. (FAC, ¶ 16.) Decedent left a will which has been entered into probate. The will leaves Decedent’s entire estate to Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶ 17.)

Defendants demur to the FAC on the grounds that:

the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleadings (CCP § 430.10 (a)); there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action (CCP § 430.10 (c)); there is a defect or misjoinder of parties (CCP § 430.10 (d)); and the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (CCP § 430.10 (e)).

(Demurrer, 2:4-8.)

In ruling on a demurrer, this Court is limited to reviewing allegations in the complaint or subject to judicial notice. Accordingly, the Court did not consider the Declaration of Harminder Mann in support of the demurrer. The Court also did not consider extrinsic facts raised in Defendants’ demurrer and in Plaintiff’s response to the demurrer. The Court notes that Defendant has included copies the Grant Deed, Quit Claim Deed, and Plaintiff has included copies of Court Minutes/Orders/Probate Notes, all documents that potentially can be subject to judicial notice. Neither of the parties, however, have filed a request for judicial notice as required by CRC Rule 3.1113. Despite both parties’ failure to file a request for judicial notice, the Court, on its own motion, will exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 452 to take judicial notice the Grant

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 09/17/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

Deed, Quit Claim Deed, and Court Minutes/Orders/Probate Notes. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.)

A demurrer and a motion to strike “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616 n.2.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action –

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 09/17/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Analysis

Lack of Jurisdiction and Another Action Pending

Defendants argue that this Court “has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading” because “[a]though not adjudicated, even if there was in fact any defect to this grant deed, any correction of such deed would not result in title being transferred to the Plaintiff. It is undisputed that the title would merely revert to the Plaintiff’s deceased husband.” (Demurrer, 5:9-12.) As a result, according to Defendants, the decision to determine Decedent’s husband’s estate must be decided in probate court, not in a civil action. Defendants add that since there is a pending probate action on Decedent’s estate, the demurrer should be sustained due to another action pending.

Plaintiff’s “response” to the demurrer provides a recitation of facts from the probate proceeding that are outside of the complaint, and not subject to judicial notice. However, the judicially noticeable documents from the Probate Court show that on April 12, 2023, the Honorable John P. Winn issued an amended order on Plaintiff’s Spousal Property Petition and Plaintiff’s Amended Petition First Amended Verified Complaint for Damages, and Hardip’s Cross-Complaint for Damages. (Response to Demurrer, Ex. 1.)

Judge Winn set the Spousal Property Petition for trial, and stated that “Litigation regarding the other petitions on calendar (Items 17, 18, and 19) is stayed until August 30, 2023. These three petitions are all civil claims that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the probate court.” (Ibid.) Then at the August 30, 2023 Probate Settlement Conference, Judge Winn ordered that “the stay is lifted on any civil matters and the Court transfers the pending civil claims to the Civil department,” and vacated the Probate Court trial. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that the complaint was never transferred to the Civil Department, therefore, she followed the Judge’s instructions and filed a new complaint in the civil department. (Response to Demurrer, 2:14-17.)

Defendants did not file a reply to Plaintiff’s response.

As it is not clear from the face of the complaint or the judicially noticeable documents that there is another action pending regarding the instant matter and or that this Court “has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading,” the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Misjoinder

Defendants further demur on the ground that there is a misjoinder of parties. This

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 09/17/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

argument, however, is based on the Declaration of Harminder Mann, which as explained above, is extrinsic evidence which the Court will not consider.

Failure to State Sufficient Facts

Defendants lastly demur on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts because the FAC on its face shows that Plaintiff lacks standing to quiet title in her name since she does not have legal title to the property.

In response, Plaintiff argues that “Plaintiff is the late wife of the decedent, and she was named the executor of his will. The will alone gave her standing, even without being appointed as executor.” (Response to Demurrer, 3:6-8.) Plaintiff adds that “[t]he will has been lodged with the probate court and a petition to administrator the estate has been filed and all probate notes have been cleared, and there are no deficiencies,” therefore, Plaintiff maintains that “[t]here is nothing preventing Plaintiff [sic] being appointed as executor of the estate to carry out the decedent’s last wishes, set forth in his will, other than the fact that Defendant made an ungrounded object [sic] to Plaintiff being appointed as the executor, simply in effort to thwart her attempt to gain title to the 1⁄4 interest in the property at issue, to which she is entitled.” (Id., 3:12-15.)

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Here, Plaintiff appears to admit implicitly that she has not yet been appointed executor of Decedent’s estate. Additionally, while Plaintiff alleges that she is the executor of Decedent’s estate, the FAC is not brought by Plaintiff as the executor of Decedent’s estate, but rather by Plaintiff as an individual.

Where leave to amend is granted, Plaintiff may file and serve a second amended complaint (“SAC”) by no later than September 30, 2024, Response to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the SAC is served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiff is requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the SAC to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

Moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.

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:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 09/17/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

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