CROSS- COMPLAINANT COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 4, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 22CV01739 McCARRELL v. A & I OLIVIERI, LLC PLAINTIFF MARCY McCARRELL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED The unopposed motion is granted and the Court will sign the proposed order submitted by counsel.
No. 16CV01899 GRANNY PURPS, INC., et al. v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al. CROSS- COMPLAINANT COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION The motion is continued so that the parties can provide supplemental briefing to the Court, as outlined below.
This case, and an associated case, resulted from the Sheriff’s Department’s raid and destruction of cannabis plants on Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff presented two government claims related to the raids. Both claims were rejected. On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed the complaint herein and a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 23, 2017 against the County of Santa Cruz (“the County”) and other defendants. The County’s demurrer was sustained. Plaintiff appealed, and the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed in part this Court’s order sustaining that demurrer to the FAC. On February 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and petition (“SAC”) for writ of mandate and for specific recovery. The SAC alleged that Granny Purps assigned the rights to the
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 4, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
complaint for damages underlying this litigation to Jeffrey Sudman and that on November 20, 2017, Sudman assigned the rights to the damages in this complaint to Canna Consulting.
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?”
On June 9, 2021, the County filed a cross-complaint against Canna Consulting, Granny Purps, Jeffrey Sudman, Nancy Kay Black, and Nancy Sudman for fraudulent transfer, constructive fraudulent transfer, violation of Business and Professions Code §17200, declaratory relief, and unjust enrichment. The first cause of action alleges that the County is a judgment creditor of Granny Purps, the Sudmans, and Black. “Cross-defendants have caused a ‘transfer’ of the chose in action of Granny Purps’ case against the County, the only remaining asset of Granny Purps away from Granny Purps and away from Jeffrey Sudman in order the thwart, undermine, encumber, and dispossess this asset and prevent the County from executing or otherwise satisfying the County Judgment through this asset in violation of its express terms and prohibition of the County Judgment.” (See below). (X-Compl. at ¶ 28.)
On April 25, 2017, Granny Purps, in a parallel proceeding, filed an amended verified petition for writ of administrative mandamus or writ of mandamus, against the County. (See case no. 17CV00837). The County filed a cross-complaint in this writ action against Granny Purps, Nancy Black, Jeffrey Sudman, and Nancy Sudman, alleging violation of the Santa Cruz County Code, violation of Business and Professions Code §17200 and abatement of a public nuisance. On October 17, 2021, notice of entry of stipulated judgment against cross-defendants in favor of the County on the cross-complaint was entered. Included in the terms of the stipulated judgment: “Granny Purps, Inc, shall pay the County of Santa Cruz the amount of $1,672,500.00 for operating an illegal and unlicensed cannabis dispensary for 224 days or portions thereof.” (¶ 1).
After an evidentiary hearing, the Court determined that Granny Purps and its officers had violated the terms of the October 12, 2017 judgment and so the monetary component of the judgment was jointly and severally entered against Granny Purps, Nancy Kay Black, Jeffery Sudman, and Nancy Sudman on September 7, 2018.
On February 5, 2024, this Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this case (16CV01899). Plaintiff’s appeal to this ruling was dismissed on December 3, 2024, as premature and/or taken from a nonappealable order. The County then filed this motion for summary adjudication to its cross-complaint in case no. 16CV01899, as to the first and second causes of action for fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer. The County asserts that the undisputed facts show the assignments from Granny Purps to the Sudmans to Canna Consulting are fraudulent and therefore voidable.
The Court requests that the parties provide further briefing to the Court as to the purpose and effect of this motion given that the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and case no. 17CV00837 settled via stipulated judgment. This motion is continued to August 13, 2026. The parties to provide supplemental briefing, to be filed by July 30, 2026, on the status of
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 4, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
the claims in this case, the status of appeals, and the potential impact a ruling on this motion would have on the case. Supplemental briefs not to exceed four pages.
No. 22CV00157 MUNGER et al. v. LOEB CROSS-DEFENDANTS DAVID LYNG & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND DANIEL ALFONSO ALVAREZ’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS The motion is granted in part. Cross-complainant may file an amended cross-complaint that comports with the following ruling within 30 days of the hearing.
I. BACKGROUND This is an action related to the sale of real property at 515 Laguna, Santa Cruz. A related case, Finger v. Loeb, no. 22CV01046, went to arbitration on the issue of specific performance of adjacent property 511 Laguna. Essentially, in both cases, the seller of both parcels, Mary Loeb, contends that she was fraudulently induced into entering into the sales contracts for both properties. She unsuccessfully sought to vacate the arbitration award in Finger which required her to pay the Finger petitioners $266,276.02, ordered specific performance of the purchase contract, required her to deposit a deed in escrow within 30 days of the purchasers’ deposit of the purchase price in escrow, and awarded costs of suit of $29,287.52 and attorneys’ fees of $106,023.50. (See this Court’s minute order of June 6, 2023, Judgment of June 7, 2023, and the unpublished opinion of the Sixth District, November 21, 2024 (nos. 22CV01046, H051224).)1
Loeb’s unsuccessful theory in Finger was that vacation of the arbitration award was necessary because (1) her realtor did not properly disclose he was also the Fingers’ agent; (2) she signed the contract believing multiple mistaken facts; (3) she was fraudulently induced into signing the contract; and (4) the petitioners failed to satisfy all statutory conditions of Civil Code §3391 [when specific performance cannot be compelled].
Cross-defendants in this case, David Lyng & Associates, Inc. and Daniel Alfonso Alvarez, were Loeb’s realtors in both transactions for 511 and 515 Laguna. Her cross-complaint against them, filed September 6, 2022, alleges four causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, intentional misrepresentation, and equitable indemnity. Crossdefendants bring this motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds of res judicata and seek to dismiss the cross-complaint with prejudice. (The plaintiffs in this action, Ron Munger and Julie Mott, dismissed their complaint against Loeb on June 15, 2023, after Loeb paid them to
1 This Court takes judicial notice of the related action, Finger v. Loeb, Santa Cruz Superior Court no. 22CV01046 and its companion appellate unpublished opinion (granting cross-defendants’ request for judicial notice). (Evidence Code § 451.)