Farahani v. Maddocks CA2/8

Filed 10/3/25 Farahani v. Maddocks CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

POORAN FARAHANI et al., as B327259 Trustees, etc., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 20STCV31400)

v.

SUSAN C. MADDOCKS, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lia Martin, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Campbell & Farahani, Frances M. Campbell, and Nima Farahani for Plaintiffs and Appellants Nicolson Law Group, Daniel S. Cho, and Andrew T. Cooledge for Defendant and Respondent

**********

This nuisance action arises from a dispute between neighboring residential property owners. Plaintiffs and appellants Pooran and Masoud Farahani, as Trustees of the Farahani Living Trust (plaintiffs), are downslope neighbors of defendant and respondent Susan C. Maddocks, as Trustee of the Susan C. Maddocks Revocable Trust (defendant). Plaintiffs allege their property is being damaged due to ongoing erosion on defendant’s property, resulting in a loss of subjacent and lateral support at their shared boundary. The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend on the ground plaintiffs’ nuisance claim alleged a permanent nuisance that was time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 338. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of dismissal, arguing their first amended complaint stated a timely claim for a continuing nuisance and, alternatively, that the court erred in declining to grant leave to amend to cure any defects. We conclude the first amended complaint adequately pleads a continuing nuisance and that no time-bar appears on the face of the pleading. We therefore vacate the dismissal entered in defendant’s favor, reverse the order sustaining the demurrer and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this action on August 17, 2020. After defendant answered the original complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend which was granted by the trial court. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint which, like their original complaint, stated one cause of action for private nuisance. We assume the facts alleged in the first amended complaint to be true to resolve whether plaintiffs have stated a legally viable claim. (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v.