| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 16, 2025 line 5. DEFENDANT ISABELLA SERRANO AN INDIVIDUAL DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED, in part, and OVERRULED, in part.
The demurrer to cause of action 1 is OVERRULED. Although there is a separate lawsuit between Plaintiff and Defendant, the cases' causes of action and parties are not the same. Additionally, this cause of action is not uncertain. The FAC alleges a written lease that "explicitly or implicitly" prohibits alterations to the premises. Section 10 and the 'house rules' of the lease also plausibly contemplates that the premises includes the surrounding area, including the yard. Further, the FAC need not allege particular details about the five historic sites for this cause of action because those details are relevant to the amount of damages.
The demurrer to cause of action 2 is OVERRULED. This cause of action is not uncertain. FAC paragraphs 16 and 17 make clear what the causal connection is between Defendant's conduct and Plaintiff's damages. And as mentioned above, the lease plausibly contemplates that the premises include the surrounding area.
The demurrer to cause of action 3 is SUSTAINED with leave to amend to allege facts regarding the tree's value as personal property. Defendant cites no authority supporting a theory of conversion where a party was held liable for simultaneously transforming a tree into personal property and destroying its value as personal property. Defendant cited three cases. Miller v. Waddingham (1891) 91 Cal. 377 involved a post-sale construction of a house. The Court also could not locate either 'Anthony v. Joaquin Ranch Co. (1909) 8 Cal.App. 627' or 'Foster v. Mott (1900) 30 Cal. 349.'
The demurrer to cause of action 4 is SUSTAINED with leave to amend to allege a viable cause of action. There is no ordinance cited, nor any facts regarding why the tree would have been protected by an ordinance.
The demurrer to causes of action 5 and 7 is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The FAC alleges Defendant Serrano acted "intentionally and willfully," which, as a matter of law, cannot constitute negligence.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The demurrer to cause of action 6 is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The FAC does not allege that statements were made to Plaintiff. Intentional misrepresentation requires that the statement to whom the false representation was made must be the person who suffered damages.
=(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tent ative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. | |