ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al.

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Olga Zagorenko’s (“Defendant”) demurrer to the Plaintiff in pro per Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is ruled upon as follows.[1]

Background This action concerns real property located at 7801 Law Lane, Loomis, California (the “Property”). Plaintiff alleges in the operative FAC that the Property is “one of our generational family properties” and that third parties acquired the Property from Plaintiff’s mother through abuse, undue influence, or fraud.[2] Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a realtor and owner improperly attempting to sell the Property despite knowing about the illegal activity and the concurrent lawsuits. The FAC’s caption states six causes of action: (1) Deed Fraud and Title Fraud/Title Theft; (2) Misrepresentation of 7801 Law Lane, Loomis, CA; (3) Negligence; (4) False Advertisement; (5) Failure to Disclose; and (6) Conflict of Interest.

The body of the FAC lists separately with headings each of the causes of action except for “Deed Fraud,” but page two of the FAC contains a paragraph related to deed fraud. Defendant demurs to the entire complaint on the basis of uncertainty and to each of the separately captioned causes of action on the ground that the FAC does not allege facts sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.[3] Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice of certain recorded land transactions is granted. “[A] court may take judicial notice of the fact of a document’s recordation, the date the document was recorded and executed, the parties to the transaction reflected in a recorded document, and the document’s legal operative language, assuming there is no genuine dispute regarding the document’s authenticity.” (Fontenot v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264–265, disapproved on other grounds by Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919.) These documents show that Defendant acquired an interest in the Property in December 2023. Defendant’s request for judicial notice on reply is denied. The Court does not consider new evidence submitted in reply absent exceptional circumstances and additional briefing allowed to the opposing party. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537–1538.)

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 tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Super. Ct. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) 'If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against demurrer.' (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38–39; Bagatti v. Dept. of Rehabilitation (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 344, 352. For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view towards substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140–141; Quelimane Co., Inc., supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 43, fn. 7.)

In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. (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.) The Court treats as true not only the complaint's material factual allegations, but also facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Amarel v. Connell, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 141.) “A court will not consider facts which have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters which have been pled or are proper subjects of judicial notice.” (Hall v.

Great Western Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 722, fn. 7.) Rather, 'facts not alleged are presumed not to exist.' (Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1327.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.) 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, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 318; William S.

Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.) The Court is to give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) 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.) “[P]laintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . [W]e 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, 697.) 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, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The Court draws all reasonable implications and inferences in favor of upholding the complaint. (Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112.)

Discussion

Plaintiff cites Probate Code section 17200 in her opposition. “PROBATE CODE, SECTION 17200 SAYS carefully defines all as detailed in this opposition.” (Opp. at p. 8:12–13.) As may be relevant, this code section states [A] trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court under this chapter concerning the internal affairs of the trust or to determine the existence of the trust.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

(Prob. Code, § 17200, subd. (a).) Although the FAC alleges that Plaintiff is currently attempting to invalidate a trust in other legal actions, the FAC does not allege that Plaintiff is a trustee or beneficiary. Nor is the FAC a petition under the Probate Code. Plaintiff’s citation to Section 17200 is not relevant to this motion. Plaintiff’s Fraud Claims: Misrepresentation and Failure to Disclose At least two of Plaintiff’s causes of action are labeled as types of fraud: “Misrepresentation of 7801 Law Lane” and “Failure to Disclose.” The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation (affirmative representation, concealment, or nondisclosure), (2) with knowledge of its falsity, (3) intended to induce reliance, (4) plaintiff’s justifiable reliance, and (5) damages. (Lazar v.

Super. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be pled specifically, including “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Id. at p. 645.) The California Civil Code states fraud liability as follows: “One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.” (Civ. Code, § 1709 [emphasis added].) In other words, fraud is a falsehood made to a person that induces that same person to rely to the person’s detriment.

Liberally construing the allegations in the FAC, the Court finds the following allegations of misrepresentation or nondisclosure:

 Defendant misrepresents to the public that the Property is for sale when Defendant knows the Property cannot be sold. (FAC at p. 2:16–17; 2:26–27; 3:11–14.)  Defendant has failed to disclose that the Property “has no proper water to water all of the property.” (FAC at p. 3:25; 2:28–4:3.)  Defendant has failed to disclose the “many permits she did not obtain to modify the entire house and our shop.” (FAC at p. 3:26–27; 4:3–5.)  Defendant has not disclosed that the home is sinking. (FAC at p. 4:3–4.)  Defendant has not disclosed that she is not only the listing agent but also a part- owner of the Property. (FAC at p. 4:14–16.)

These allegations do not state fraud. They allege that Defendant has not informed the public of certain alleged facts. Plaintiff does not allege any misrepresentation or omission made to Plaintiff on which Plaintiff relied to Plaintiff’s detriment. The Court finds that the FAC does not allege fraud actionable by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the causes of action for Misrepresentation and Failure to Disclose is SUSTAINED. Negligence

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 480.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “is neglecting to provide proper information” about the Property. (FAC at p. 3:11.) Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty and fails to allege any facts showing that Defendant breached a duty of care owed to Plaintiff or caused Plaintiff any harm. In opposition, Plaintiff writes that “loss and deprivation an [sic] property as an injury I am personally suffering.” (Opp. at p. 7:9.)

However, Defendant has demurred to the FAC, and Plaintiff may not supplement the FAC’s allegations by argument in her opposition papers. Furthermore, even if the FAC alleged injury, the FAC would still fail to allege the other elements of negligence, each of which is necessary. Liberally construing the FAC, the Court could read Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant “is neglecting to provide proper information” as attempting to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation is a form of fraud or deceit in which the defendant is alleged to have mistakenly, rather than intentionally, made material false misrepresentations. (Bily v.

Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, 407–408.) But even if Plaintiff meant to allege this cause of action, the FAC would fail for the same reasons it fails to state claims for other forms of fraud: it does not allege a misrepresentation made to Plaintiff on which Plaintiff relied. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the cause of action for Negligence is SUSTAINED. False Advertisement The False Advertising Law (“FAL;” Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.) prohibits “not only advertising which is false, but also advertising which[,] although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.” (Veera v.

Banana Republic, LLC (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 907, 914–915.) Remedies under the FAL are generally limited to injunction and restitution, and a party must have “suffered injury in fact and lost money or property” in order to have standing to assert a claim. (Id. at p. 915.) Plaintiff prays for general and special damages in an amount to be proved at trial. (FAC at p. 5.) Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief and Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant’s online misrepresentations have caused her to lose money or property.

The core of Plaintiff’s allegations is that the Property had previously been conveyed unlawfully and that Defendant is now marketing the Property for sale again. Based on the allegations in the FAC, Plaintiff does not have standing to assert a claim under the FAL. Defendant’s demurrer to the cause of action for False Advertisement is SUSTAINED. Conflict of Interest The Fifth Cause of Action is titled “Conflict of Interest.” In this section of the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is “misleading all in on [sic] social media as though she is just the listing agent and not disclosing to the public that her name also is on the deed falsely.” (FAC at p. 4:15–16.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

Defendant asserts that “there is no cause of action for conflicts of interest.” (MPA at p. 8:17–19.) This isn’t quite correct. An interested party can bring a conflict of interest claim against a public official to invalidate a public contract under the state’s ethics statutes. (Gov. Code, § 1090; see McGee v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 235, 246–247.) Regardless, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant is a public official or that a public contract is at issue. Defendant’s demurrer to the cause of action for Conflict of Interest is SUSTAINED.

Uncertainty In addition to the five causes of action discussed above, each individually headed within the FAC, the caption of the FAC purports to state a cause of action for “Deed Fraud and Title Fraud/Title Theft.” Page two of the FAC alleges in pertinent part: DEED FRAUD IS DESCRIBED AS, “a fraudulent transfer of a property.” [Defendant] with her family are engaging also in several criminal acts against us by using our family homes for generations destroying to attempt to profit illegally from selling our family home for generations [Defendant] is misrepresenting to the public online that [the Property] is for sale which cannot be sold.

(FAC at p. 2:4–20.) Plaintiff’s opposition expands on this: DEED FRAUD IS also known as “home title theft” and is an illegal scheme where a person crafts or records a false property document to transfer real estate ownership without the the [sic] true owner’s knowledge.”

(Opp. at p. 6:1–3.) Defendant does not specifically demur to the FAC on the grounds that it does not state a claim for “deed fraud” but does demur on the ground of uncertainty because “the Complaint fails to allege the basic facts necessary to permit Defendant ZAGORENKO to understand and respond to the claims asserted against her.” (MPA at p. 8:8–9.) A defendant may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain, ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) Demurrers for uncertainty are sustained only when “the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J.

Fistes Corp. v. GCL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) The standard is permissive. A complaint need only “sufficiently appris[e] defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet” because ambiguities can be clarified during discovery. (Ibid. [quoting Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2].) The allegations within the “Deed Fraud” section of the FAC are similar to those throughout: third parties abused or defrauded Plaintiff’s mother to unlawfully acquire the Property, and Defendant is aware of Plaintiff’s ongoing lawsuits to invalidate the transaction. (See FAC at p. 2.)

Plaintiff argues that she shows deed fraud by alleging that Defendant is actively advertising the Property despite Defendant's knowledge of the litigation and investigations. (Opp. at p. 5:21–27.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

The Court finds the FAC to be uncertain or unintelligible as to the claim of “Deed Fraud.” First, the Court is not aware of a cause of action labeled “deed fraud” or “title theft.” (See generally CACI.) Plaintiff does not cite authority supporting its existence or specifying its elements. Second, the Rules of Court require that each cause of action specifically state its number and its nature. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112.) The FAC fails to comply with this rule as to the “deed fraud” cause of action.

Finally, Plaintiff’s allegations appear largely to restate the allegations asserted for the separately named and numbered causes of action in the FAC. Even liberally construing the allegations, the Court would have to speculate to determine what, if any, causes of action Plaintiff may mean to state. The Court does not advocate for any party. (KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water Dist. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1031; Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52.) For the reasons stated, Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty is SUSTAINED as against Plaintiff’s cause of action for Deed Fraud, if indeed the FAC attempts to state such a claim.

Disposition

As stated above, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety. As this is the first adjudicated challenge to the pleadings, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend. (City of Stockton v. Super. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.) Plaintiff may file and serve an Amended Complaint no later than October 5, 2026. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).) Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the Amended Complaint. Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] On January 22, 2026, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application for leave to amend on

the explicit condition that the previously filed demurrer would apply to the FAC. The only difference between Plaintiff’s original complaint and the FAC is that Plaintiff verified the FAC. All factual allegations between the two pleadings are identical. [2] Plaintiff has litigated or is litigating the alleged fraudulent transfer of the Property

through several other active or completed lawsuits. (See, e.g., Sac. County Super. Ct. Case Nos. 23CV010116; 23CV014052; 25CV018367; 25CV028148.) [3] Plaintiff filed her opposition papers timely but served the papers on the correct

attorney six days late. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) In light of the Court’s ruling on this motion, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff is admonished for failing to comply with filing and service deadlines.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

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 Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16C

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.