Complaint-Civil Party: Plaintiff BCS3 Housing, LLC Index #1 March 29, 2024 (2025)

Table of Contents

Preview Related Contentin Hennepin County Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Ruling Ruling Ruling Ruling Ruling Ruling Ruling Ruling Document Document Document Document Document Document Document Document FAQs References

Preview
27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM State of Minnesota District Court County of HENNEPIN Judicial District: FOURTH Court File Number: Case Type: HousingBCS3 Housing, LLCPlaintiff (“Landlord”)3800 American Blvd. WestBloomington, MN 55431 Addressvs. Eviction Action Complaint (Minn. Stat. § 504B.321)Mark McNeal and Susan McNealDefendant(s) (“Tenant”)8051 33rd Ave. S., #573Bloomington, MN 55425 Address______________________________________________________________________________ I, Nikolas D. Schaal, state upon oath/affirmation: 1. Landlord leased or rented to Tenant on March 15, 2023, by written agreement thepremises at: 8051 33rd Ave. S., #573 in the City of Bloomington, the State of Minnesota, zip code55425, in the County of Hennepin. The agreement was from May 28, 2023 to June 27, 2024. Thecurrent rent due and payable under this agreement each month is $2,337.00 due on the 1st day ofthe month. 2. The Landlord of the Premises is BCS3 Housing, LLC. 3. Landlord having present right of possession of said property has complied withMinn. Stat. § 504B.181 by: a. Disclosing to the Tenant either in the rental agreement or otherwise in writing prior to beginning of the tenancy the name and address of: i. The person authorized to manage the property AND ii. A landlord or agent authorized by the landlord to accept service of process and receive and give receipt for notices and demands, AND b. Posted in a conspicuous place on the property a printed or typewritten notice containing the above information, specifically the common area. 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM 4. Landlord seeks to have the Tenant evicted for the following reasons: the Tenantremains in possession of the above premises and has failed to pay rent or other charges, for thepartial or full month(s) of March 2024, due in the total amount of $2,718.28 as of March 22, 2024,as such amount is further detailed in the attached Ledger. Past due rent and other charges willcontinue to accrue from the date referenced in the attached Ledger. Landlord will seek judgmentfor restitution of the premises based on all past due rent and charges owing as of the date of theeviction hearing. 5. The Landlord seeks judgment against the above Tenant for restitution of saidpremises plus costs and disbursements herein. 6. Notice was provided in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 504B.321, subd. 1a. 7. The tenancy is not affected by a federal or state housing subsidy program throughproject-based federal assistance payments; the Section 8 program, as defined in Minn. Stat.§ 469.002, subd. 24; the low-income housing tax credit program; or any other similar program. Verification and Affidavit of Non-Military Status I, Nikolas D. Schaal , being sworn/affirmed, state that I am the attorney inthis action, that I have read the complaint and that it is true to the best of my knowledge; that I amunable to verify whether Defendant is in the military service of the United States. I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true andcorrect. Minn. Stat. § 358.116. BERNICK LIFSON, P.A.Dated: March 29, 2024 /s/ Nikolas D. Schaal____ Matthew D. Goldfine (#391149) mgoldfine@bernicklifson.com Malcolm P. Terry (#261117) mterry@bernicklifson.com Nikolas D. Schaal (#396690) nschaal@bernicklifson.com 600 Highway 169 South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 227-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM Telephone: (763) 546-5455 Facsimile: (763) 546-1003 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 3 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM APARTMENT LEASE CONTRACTDate of Lease Contract: This is a binding document. Read carefully before signing. Moving In — General Information1. PARTIES. 3. LEASE TERM. you, (list all people signing the , Lease Contract): 11:59 pm the , . 4. RENT AND CHARGES. $ us the owner: at (name of apartment community or title holder). [check Apartment No. at , one]: 1st month or , . (street address) in (city), Minnesota, (zip code) Name (check one): or % of 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT. Name in the apartment is $ In compliance with Minnesota law, your security deposit will bear simple interest. Interest will be included as part of the security deposit.2. OCCUPANTS. (list all other occupants not signing the Lease Contract): 6. KEYS. other access 7. UTILITIES. water gas master antenna wastewater trash other© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. - 9/2022, Minnesota Page 1 of 8 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota [check one] 3/29/2024 3:23 PM 9. LOCKS AND LATCHES.8. INSURANCE. Payment for Rekeying, Repairs, Etc. Special Provisions and “What If” Clauses10. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 13. PROPERTY LEFT IN APARTMENT.11. EARLY MOVE-OUT. $ (not to exceed 100% of the highest monthly rent during the lease term) 14. FAILING TO PAY FIRST MONTH’S RENT. The reletting charge is not a cancellation fee and does not release you from your obligations under this Lease Contract. Not a Release. paragraph. 15. RENT INCREASES AND LEASE CONTRACT CHANGES. No rent12. REIMBURSEMENT. 16. DELAY OF OCCUPANCY. Unless the damage or wastewater stoppage is due to our negligence, we’re not liable for—and you must pay for—repairs, replacement costs, and damage to the following that result from your or your invitees, guests, or occupants’ irresponsible or willful acts: (1) damage to doors, windows, or screens; (2) damage from windows or doors left open; and (3) damage from wastewater stoppages caused by improper objects in lines exclusively serving your apartment.© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. - 9/2022, Minnesota Page 2 of 8 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 17. AD VALOREM TAXES/FEES AND CHARGES - ADDITIONAL RENT. 3/29/2024 3:23 PM 18. DISCLOSURE RIGHTS. While You’re Living in the Apartment19. COMMUNITY POLICIES OR RULES. 22. PARKING.20. LIMITATIONS ON CONDUCT. space. 23. RELEASE OF RESIDENT. 24. MILITARY PERSONNEL CLAUSE. 25. RESIDENT SAFETY AND PROPERTY LOSS.21. PROHIBITED CONDUCT. Smoke Detectors/Carbon Monoxide Detectors.© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. - 9/2022, Minnesota 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM Casualty Loss. 28. ANIMALS. Crime or Emergency.26. CONDITION OF THE APARTMENT AND ALTER ATIONS. 29. WHEN WE MAY ENTER. agree otherwise in writing.27. REQUESTS, REPAIRS, AND MALFUNCTIONS.© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. - 9/2022, Minnesota 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 30. JOINT AND SEVERAL RESPONSIBILITY. 3/29/2024 3:23 PM Replacements31. REPLACEMENTS AND SUBLETTING. Procedures for Replacement. or Responsibilities of Owner and Resident32. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNER. 34. DEFAULT BY RESIDENT. Eviction. the term of this Lease Contract. Lease Renewal When A Breach or Default Has Occurred.33. RESPONSIBILITIES OF RESIDENT. Lease. Remedies Cumulative. General Clauses35. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. 36. NO AUTHORITY TO AMEND UNLESS IN WRITING.© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. - 9/2022, Minnesota Page 5 of 8 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota37. NO WAIVER 3/29/2024 3:23 PM38. NOTICE. 44. RIGHT OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE TO TERMINATE TENANCY.39. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Time is of the essence in this Lease Contract. 45. NOTICE REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 504B.305. 46. NOTICE REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS40. OBLIGATION TO VACATE. 504B.181, SUBD. 2(B). 47. NOTICE OF PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES.41. CONTACTING YOU. 48. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL.42. FORCE MAJEURE. 49. PAYMENTS. 50. ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP.43. TERMINATION OF LEASE UPON DEATH OF RESIDENT. When Moving Out51. MOVE-OUT NOTICE.© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. - 9/2022, Minnesota Page 6 of 8 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM52.MOVE-OUT PROCEDURES. Contract. 56.DEPOSIT RETURN, SURRENDER, AND ABANDONMENT. Deposit Return and Forwarding Address.53.CLEANING. charges. Surrender.54. MOVE-OUT INSPECTION. Abandonment.55. SECURITY DEPOSIT DEDUCTIONS AND OTHER CHARGES. Severability, Originals and Attachments, and Signatures57.SEVERABILITY. (same as on top of page 1) Resident or Residents (all sign below)58.ORIGINALS AND ATTACHMENTS. Owner or Owner’s Representative (signing on behalf of owner) Address and phone number of owner’s representative for notice purposes Name and address of locator service (if applicable) You are legally bound by this document. Read it carefully before signing.© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. - 9/2022, Minnesota 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of MinnesotaSPECIAL PROVISIONS (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2) The parties agree that acceptance of a partial payment 3/29/2024 3:23 PMdoes not waive owner's right to recover possession of the premises, and does not waiveowner's right to file or proceed with an eviction action for the balance owed. Acceptance ofpast, present, or future rent or other charges shall not be deemed a waiver by owner of anypast, present, or future breach of the lease or termination notice, and shall not waiveowner's right to recover possession of the premises, or waive owner's right to file and/orproceed with an eviction action.© 2022, National Apartment Association, Inc. Minnesota/National ApartmentAssociation Official Form, September 2022 Page 8 of 8 IVI Blue Moon eSignature Services Document ID: 363479137 I 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM INVENTORY AND CONDITION FORMDWELLING UNIT DESCRIPTION. Unit No. , (street address) in (city), Minnesota, (zip code).LEASE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION. Lease Contract date: Owner’s name:Residents (list all residents):Within 48 hours after move-in, you must note on this form all defects, damage, or safety or pest-related concerns andreturn it to our representative. Otherwise, everything will be considered to be in a clean, safe, and good working condition.Please mark through items listed below or put “none” if the items don’t exist. This form protects both you (the resident)and us (the owner). We’ll use it in determining what should and should not be considered your responsibility upon move-Resident’s Name:Home Phone: ( ) Work Phone: ( )Resident’s Name:Home Phone: ( ) Work Phone: ( )Resident’s Name:Home Phone: ( ) Work Phone: ( )Resident’s Name:Home Phone: ( ) Work Phone: ( )Resident’s Name:Home Phone: ( ) Work Phone: ( )Resident’s Name:Home Phone: ( ) Work Phone: ( ) (Check one)Living Room Refrigerator Light, Crisper Walls Dishwasher, Dispensers, Racks Sink/disposal Wallpaper Microwave Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Other Woodwork/Baseboards General Items Ceiling Thermostat Light Fixtures, Bulbs Cable TV or Master Antenna Floor/Carpet A/C Filter Washer/Dryer Doors, Stops, Locks Garage Door Windows, Latches, Screens Ceiling Fans Window Coverings Exterior Doors, Screens/Screen Doors, Doorbell Closets, Rods, Shelves Fireplace Closet Lights, Fixtures Other Lamps, Bulbs OtherKitchen Dining Room Walls Walls Wallpaper Wallpaper Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Woodwork/Baseboards Woodwork/Baseboards Ceiling Ceiling Light Fixtures, Bulbs Light Fixtures, Bulbs Floor/Carpet Floor/Carpet Doors, Stops, Locks Doors, Stops, Locks Windows, Latches, Screens Windows, Latches, Screens Window Coverings Window Coverings Cabinets, Drawers, Handles Closets, Rods, Shelves Countertops Closet Lights, Fixtures Stove/Oven, Trays, Pans, Shelves Other Vent Hood Refrigerator, Trays, Shelves© 2021, National Apartment Association, Inc. -12/2021, Minnesota Page 1 of 3 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of MinnesotaHalls Half Bath 3/29/2024 3:23 PM Walls Walls Wallpaper Wallpaper Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Woodwork/Baseboards Woodwork/Baseboards Ceiling Ceiling Light Fixtures, Bulbs Light Fixtures, Bulbs Floor/Carpet Exhaust Fan/Heater Floor/Carpet Doors, Stops, Locks Closets, Rods, Shelves Doors, Stops, Locks Closet Lights, Fixtures Windows, Latches, Screens Other Window CoveringsExterior (if applicable) Sink, Faucet, Handles, Stopper Patio/Yard Countertops Fences/Gates/Gate Latches or Locks Mirror Faucets Cabinets, Drawers, Handles Balconies Toilet, Paper Holder Other Tile OtherBedroom (describe which one) Walls Bedroom (describe which one): Wallpaper Walls Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Woodwork/Baseboards Wallpaper Ceiling Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Light Fixtures, Bulbs Woodwork/Baseboards Floor/Carpet Ceiling Light Fixtures, Bulbs Doors, Stops, Locks Floor/Carpet Windows, Latches, Screens Window Coverings Doors, Stops, Locks Closets, Rods, Shelves Windows, Latches, Screens Closet Lights, Fixtures Window Coverings Other Closets, Rods, Shelves Closet Lights, FixturesBedroom (describe which one): Other Walls Wallpaper Bath (describe which one): Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Walls Woodwork/Baseboards Ceiling Wallpaper Light Fixtures, Bulbs Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Floor/Carpet Woodwork/Baseboards Ceiling Doors, Stops, Locks Light Fixtures, Bulbs Windows, Latches, Screens Exhaust Fan/Heater Window Coverings Floor/Carpet Closets, Rods, Shelves Closet Lights, Fixtures Doors, Stops, Locks Other Windows, Latches, Screens Window Coverings Sink, Faucet, Handles, StopperBath (describe which one): Countertops Walls Mirror Cabinets, Drawers, Handles Wallpaper Toilet, Paper Holder Plugs, Switches, A/C Vents Bathtub, Enclosure, Stopper Woodwork/Baseboards Shower, Doors, Rods Ceiling Tile Light Fixtures, Bulbs Other Exhaust Fan/Heater Floor/Carpet Safety-Related Items (Put “N/A” if not applicable) Doors, Stops, Locks Door Knob Locks Windows, Latches, Screens Keyed Deadbolt Locks Window Coverings Sink, Faucet, Handles, Stopper Keyless Deadbolts Countertops Mirror Sliding Door Pin Locks Cabinets, Drawers, Handles Sliding Door Latches Toilet, Paper Holder Sliding Door Security Bars Bathtub, Enclosure, Stopper Doorviewers Shower, Doors, Rods Window Latches Tile Porch and Patio Lights Other Smoke Detectors© 2021, National Apartment Association, Inc. -12/2021, Minnesota Page 2 of 3 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Alarm System Date of Move-In: 3/29/2024 3:23 PM Fire Extinguishers (look at charge level-BUT DON’T TEST!) or Garage Door Opener Date of Move-Out: Gate Access Card(s) OtherSPECIAL PROVISIONS.Acknowledgment. You agree you will complete and submit this form in accordance with this Lease and our Community Policies.You acknowledge you will inspect and test all safety-related items in the apartment, including smoke alarms and any other detector(s),to be in good and working condition unless otherwise noted. You acknowledge you will receive written operating instructions onno signs of bed bugs or other pests are present, or, if bugs are present, that you will promptly report any bed bug or pest issues onthis Inventory and Condition Form and through a written work order or other written repair request. You agree that this returnedof deposit due to you when you move out. You acknowledge that if you do not return the form within 48 hours after move-in, wewill consider the apartment to be clean, safe, free of pest or insect infestations, and in good working condition for purposes ofdetermining any refund of deposit due to you at move-out.the premises for purposes of determining any refund due to you when you move out.Resident or Resident’s Agent: Date of SigningResident or Resident’s Agent: Date of SigningResident or Resident’s Agent: Date of SigningResident or Resident’s Agent: Date of SigningResident or Resident’s Agent: Date of SigningResident or Resident’s Agent: Date of SigningOwner or Owner’s Representative: Date of Signing 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PM UTILITY AND SERVICES ADDENDUMThis Utility Addendum is incorporated into the Lease Contract (referred to in this Addendum as “Lease Contract” or “Lease”) dated between(“We” and/or “we” and/or “us”) and(“You” and/or “you”) of Apt. No. located at (street address) in and is in addition to all terms and conditions in the Lease.This Addendum constitutes an Addendum to the above described Lease Contract for the above described premises, and is hereby incorporatedinto and made a part of such Lease Contract. Where the terms or conditions found in this Addendum vary or contradict any terms or conditionsfound in the Lease Contract, this Addendum shall control.1. Responsibility for payment of utilities, and the method of metering or otherwise measuring the cost of the utility, will be as indicated below. a) Water service to your apartment will be paid by you either: per month. b) Sewer service to your apartment will be paid by you either: per month. c) Gas service to your apartment will be paid by you either: per month. d) Trash service to your apartment will be paid by you either: per month. e) Electric service to your apartment will be paid by you either: electric bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month. f) Stormwater service to your apartment will be paid by you either: stormwater bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month. g) Cable TV service to your apartment will be paid by you either: cable TV bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month. h) Master Antenna service to your apartment will be paid by you either: master antenna bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month. i) Internet service to your apartment will be paid by you either: internet bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month. j) Pest Control service to your apartment will be paid by you either: pest control bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month. k) (Other) service to your apartment will be paid by you either: bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month.© 2019, National Apartment Association, Inc. -1/2019, Minnesota Page 1 of 3 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota l) (Other) service to your apartment will be paid by you either: 3/29/2024 3:23 PM bills will be billed by the service provider to us and then allocated to you based on the following formula: per month. “1” - Sub-metering of all of your water/gas/electric use “2” - Calculation of your total water use based on sub-metering of hot water “3” - Calculation of your total water use based on sub-metering of cold water “4” - Flat rate per month “5” - Allocation based on the number of persons residing in your apartment “6” - Allocation based on the number of persons residing in your apartment using a ratio occupancy formula “7” - Allocation based on square footage of your apartment “8” - Allocation based on a combination of square footage of your apartment and the number of persons residing in your apartment “9” - Allocation based on the number of bedrooms in your apartment “10” - Allocation based on a lawful formula not listed here (Note: if method “10” is selected, a separate sheet will be attached describing the formula used)2. Allocation formulas are used when the apartment has no sub-meter. The formula may be based on factors such as, the interior square footage of the apartment, number of bedrooms, number of occupants, number of bathrooms, presence of washing machine, and average water usage calculate your allocated share of the utilities and services provided and all costs in accordance with state and local statutes. Under any allocation method, Resident may be paying for part of the utility usage in common areas or in other residential units as well as administrative fees. Both Resident and Owner agree that using a calculation or allocation formula as a basis for estimating total utility consumption is fair Where lawful, we may change the above methods of determining your allocated share of utilities and services and all other billing methods, in our sole discretion, and after providing written notice to you. More detailed descriptions of billing methods, calculations and allocation formulas will be provided upon request. billed is not based on a monthly per unit cost.3. When billed by us directly or through our billing company, you must pay utility bills within days of the date when the utility below. The late payment of a bill or failure to pay any utility bill is a material and substantial breach of the Lease and we will exercise all remedies available under the Lease, up to and including eviction for nonpayment. To the extent there are any new account, monthly New Account Fee: ) ) ) )4. You will be charged for the full period of time that you were living in, occupying, or responsible for payment of rent or utility charges on the service billed to us for your apartment and may charge a reasonable administration fee for billing for the utility service in the amount of .5. you move out or it will be deducted from the security deposit.6. apartment unless such loss or damage was the direct result of negligence by us or our employees. You release us from any and all such claims and waive any claims for offset or reduction of rent or diminished rental value of the apartment due to such outages, interruptions, or7. You agree not to tamper with, adjust, or disconnect any utility sub-metering system or device. Violation of this provision is a material breach of your Lease and may subject you to eviction or other remedies available to us under your Lease, this Utility Addendum and at law.8. Where lawful, all utilities, charges and fees of any kind under this lease shall be considered additional rent, and if partial payments are9. of any change in such number of occupants.10. You agree that you may, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice from Owner to you, begin receiving a bill for additional utilities and services, at which time such additional utilities and services shall for all purposes be included in the term Utilities.11. This Addendum is designed for use in multiple jurisdictions, and no billing method, charge, or fee mentioned herein will be used in any law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability only without invalidating or otherwise affecting control.12.The following special provisions and any addenda or written rules furnished to you at or before signing will become a part of this Utility© 2019, National Apartment Association, Inc. -1/2019, Minnesota Page 2 of 3 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/29/2024 3:23 PMResident SignatureResident SignatureResident SignatureResident SignatureResident SignatureResident SignatureManagement© 2019, National Apartment Association, Inc. -1/2019, Minnesota Page 3 of 3 27-CV-HC-24-2012 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/

Related Contentin Hennepin County

Case

York Property Advisors Llc , plaintiff, et al VS Josephine W White

Jun 14, 2023 |Clerk Of Court C P, G S, And Family Court |Common Pleas |Foreclosure 420 |2023CP4601853

Case

IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF A DEED OF TRUST MATTHEW J DECEASED CHIPOLET

Mar 19, 2024 |Foreclosure (Special Proceeding) |Foreclosure (Special Proceeding) |24SP000532-400

Case

Wonder Dog Management, Corporation,Eastpoint Apartments vs Kaia Jennings

Aug 13, 2024 |Stafford, Kenneth |Landlord/Tenant - Residential Eviction |Landlord/Tenant - Residential Eviction |24LT16963

Case

Lakeview Loan Servicing Llc VS Sanket Patel , defendant, et al

Jun 21, 2023 |Clerk Of Court C P, G S, And Family Court |Common Pleas |Foreclosure 420 |2023CP4601920

Case

Jennifer Ilk vs. Tiffany Jackson

Sep 02, 2024 |Small Claims Commissioner Court |Small Claims, Eviction |Small Claims |2024SC025717

Case

94 ROGERS LLC V GREG JONES

Case

Saeed Momenian v. Yasmin Aktar

May 29, 2024 |Trabal, Raquel |Landlord & Tenant - Commercial |2024-LTB-005633

Case

BC Avent Ferry Partners, LLC d/b/a Summit at Avent Ferry VS Dale Shjuan Daye

Aug 29, 2024 |Civil Magistrate Summary Ejectment |Civil Magistrate Summary Ejectment |24CV027627-910

Case

Hairston Property Holdings LP, Blue Magma Residential LLC VS Denarius McKinney,all others

Aug 14, 2024 |Anderson, Berryl A |Magistrate Dispossessory - Non Payment of Rent |24D20843

Ruling

RAOUL J. FREEMAN AND ELLEN A. FREEMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE RAOUL AND ELLEN FREEMAN FAMILY TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1983 VS XAVIER LANNES, ET AL.

Sep 09, 2024 |23SMCV05520

Case Number: 23SMCV05520 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Freeman, et al. v. Lannes, et al., Case No. 23SMCV05520 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Plaintiff Freemans Motion to Enforce Written Settlement Pursuant to CCP 664.6 (UNOPPOSED) Plaintiffs Freeman brought an unlawful detainer action against defendants Lannes and Torres for failure to pay rent. The court dismissed the action under CCP 664.6 after the parties reached a conditional settlement. Plaintiffs now move to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. No opposition is filed. The court may interpret the terms and conditions of a settlement, Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566, but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon. Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810. The court has jurisdiction because the parties filed a stipulation which includes §664.6 language and is signed by both parties. Freeman Decl. Ex. 1. The stipulation allows ex parte enforcement upon default. Id. ¶5, 15. Freeman states that defendants defaulted by failing to make required payments. Freeman Decl. ¶9. Considering this evidence, and lack of opposition, enforcing the settlement is appropriate. GRANTED.

Ruling

FCS059299 - SHARMA, R V GOMEZ, LUIS R, ET AL (DMS)

Sep 04, 2024 |FCS059299

FCS059299SHARMA’s Demurrer to GOMEZ’s First Amended Cross-ComplaintTENTATIVE RULINGPlaintiff and Cross-Defendant RAJ SHARMA (“SHARMA”) demurs to Defendant andCross-Complainant LUIS R. GOMEZ’s (“GOMEZ”) first amended cross-complaint(“GOMEZ 1ACC”) asserting causes of action for indemnity under Labor Code section2802, failure to provide itemized wage statements under Labor Code section 226, andcommon law indemnity. Summarized, SHARMA’s first amended complaint in this casealleges that GOMEZ refuses to remove his construction equipment and debris presenton and damaging SHARMA’s agricultural land; the GOMEZ 1ACC alleges that GOMEZwas SHARMA’s employee by oral agreement and SHARMA committed labor lawviolations.Legal Standard on Demurrer. “The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency ofthe complaint as a matter of law.” (Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420.) A complaint is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather thanevidentiary facts, but the plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of his or her case“with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendantwith the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. (Doheny Park TerraceHomeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.)Legal conclusions are insufficient. (Id. at 1098–1099; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007)42 Cal.4th 531, 551, fn. 5 [ultimate facts sufficient].) The court “assume[s] the truth ofthe allegations in the complaint, but do[es] not assume the truth of contentions,deductions, or conclusions of law.” (California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 242, 247.)Labor Code Section 2802 Indemnification. The GOMEZ 1ACC’s first cause of actionis for indemnification pursuant to Labor Code section 2802. The elements of such acause of action are (1) the employee made expenditures or suffered losses, (2) theexpenditures or losses were incurred in direct consequence of the employee’sdischarge of his duties or obedience to the directions of his employer, and (3) theexpenditures or losses were necessary. (Lab. Code, § 2802, subd. (a); Cassady v.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 220, 231.)GOMEZ does not sufficiently allege this cause of action. The GOMEZ 1ACC containsonly a conclusory allegation that he was SHARMA’s employee, without sufficient factualdetail to demonstrate in what way SHARMA functioned as an employer. (Martinez v.Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 [to employ for wage & hour purposes is to control work,permit to work, or engage for work].) Further, to maintain this cause of action anemployee must show that expenditures were incurred in consequence of work dutiesand/or directions and were necessary. Without information as to what GOMEZ’s workduties and/or directions were these elements are not sufficiently alleged. Nor doesGOMEZ clearly state expenditures or losses. He states only that he “suffered and/orwill suffer damages.” (GOMEZ 1ACC at ¶ 9.)Itemized Wage Statements. Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a) requiresemployers to furnish their employees with itemized wage statements showing details ofwages such as hours worked and pay rates for those hours. (Furry v. East BayPublishing, LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1083.) As stated, GOMEZ’s allegations ofemployment under SHARMA are insufficient.Common Law Indemnification. The GOMEZ 1ACC states neither a loss to beindemnified against nor an agreement under which SHARMA must contractuallyindemnify GOMEZ or a situation wherein the two are joint tortfeasors entitled toequitable indemnity as regards each other. (Great Western Drywall, Inc. v. InterstateFire & Casualty Co. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041 [requirements for indemnity].)Leave to Amend. Leave to amend is proper where identified defects are amenable tocure. (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) It is the pleading party’sburden to show the trial court that a reasonable possibility exists that amendment cancure identified defects in that party’s pleading. (Murphy v. Twitter, Inc. (2018) 60Cal.App.5th 12, 42.) GOMEZ’s filings demonstrate a reasonable possibility thatamendment can cure the identified defects in the GOMEZ 1ACC.Conclusion. SHARMA’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. GOMEZ is to fileany amended pleading within thirty days of the date of this order.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://www.zoomgov.com/j/1602210102?pwd=emlhR29SczExam56NFFqWHFvSitmZz09Meeting ID: 160 221 0102Passcode: 650928One tap mobile+16692545252,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose)+16692161590,,1602210102#,,,,*650928# US (San Jose)

Ruling

OF THE MICHAEL AND KIMBERLY GUTHRIE LIVING TRUST MICHAEL GUTHRIE, AS CO-TRUSTEE, ET AL. VS ROBERT SHIRI, ET AL.

Sep 06, 2024 |6/18/2022 |22SMCV00510

Case Number: 22SMCV00510 Hearing Date: September 6, 2024 Dept: I This is yet another discovery motion. This is defendants motion to compel the discovery of a third party witness, Jessie Guthrie. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The opposition is one day late, but the court has considered it. The court has also considered the reply. If there is a date certain for the deposition, the court will GRANT the motion and order the witness to be present (remotely) at the agreed upon date and time. If not, then the motion will be GRANTED and the court will describe the way that the date will be set. The court notes as background that plaintiffs position is that the deposition is being used for purposes of harassment rather than to get any actual information. That might or might not be the case, but the court does not believe that the evidence establishes as much. Given that it appears that the defense will agree to a remote deposition, the better course would not be to expend the resources necessary to fight this battlenot to mention the judicial resourcesbut rather to let the deposition go forward. After all, while plaintiffs contend that the witness knows nothing, the court is unaware of any case law that suggests that the defense has to take plaintiffs counsels word for it. Defendant seeks sanctions. As the court has previously stated, it does not believe that Mr. Shiri is entitled to recover as a lawyer in this case given that he is the defendants beneficial owner. However, the only evidence in the moving papers relates to Mr. Shiris fees and time. On August 26, 2024, Mr. Barton filed an untimely declaration claiming that he did much of the work on the case and sought $1950 in fees. The Barton declaration is not only untimely, it is also suspect. Mr. Shiris declaration says nothing about any time spent by Mr. Barton; rather, it alludes only to time Mr. Shiri spent on the motion (5 hours). The court has some reason to doubt (as a logical matter) that Mr. Barton spent time on this motion but Mr. Shiri elected to waive it. It might be that such is the case, but no one has put in a declaration explaining that odd result. And the court does not want to hear it now. Suffice it to say that the Barton declaration is untimely and is DISREGARDED. The court had been inclined to award $60 (representing the filing fee), but the late-filed Barton declarationimproper and suspect on its facesuggests that the better path is to exercise the courts discretion and deny the request for sanctions outright. Therefore, the request for sanctions is DENIED. Once again, and for the last time, the court asks the parties to stop this blood feud. The rules on discovery are clear and the court has provided its guidelines. And this is twice now (recently) that plaintiff has been abusing the system. The court strongly suspects that defendant has now learned that Mr. Bartons time is recoverable and Mr. Shiris time is not. The court further suspects that as a result Mr. Barton will start having a larger role in the discovery process. It is time to stop the discovery battles and get the case ready for trial. There will be no continuances of the trial date other than: (1) for an unforeseen and unforeseeable medical emergency; (2) to allow the parties to finalize a settlement that has been definitively reached; or (3) because the court is otherwise engaged in trialsomething the parties may not know until the final status conference and that will not extend any deadlines. More to the point, the court strongly urges the parties to attempt to resolve this case. The court will inquire the parties to engage in some form of ADR before the trial and before the FSC. The court strongly believes mediation is the best course, but if that is not possible, the court will order an MSC.

Ruling

ROBERTA F. MORRISSEY VS MORTGAGE ASSETS MANAGEMENT, LLC., ET AL.

Sep 04, 2024 |24STCV15755

Case Number: 24STCV15755 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 Dept: 53 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Central District Department 53 roberta f. morrissey, as trustee to the Roberta F. Morrissey Trust, dated September 15, 1993 ; Plaintiff, vs. mortgage assets management, llc , et al.; Defendants. Case No.: 24STCV15755 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. [tentative] Order RE: plaintiffs motion to relate and consolidate cases MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Roberta F. Morrissey, as trustee to the Roberta F. Morrissey Trust, dated September 15, 1993 RESPONDING PARTY: Redwood Holdings, LLC, as plaintiff in Case No. 24PDUD02239, and as a defendant in the pending action Motion to Relate and Consolidate Cases The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion. DISCUSSION Plaintiff Roberta F. Morrisey, as trustee to the Roberta F. Morrissey Trust, dated September 15, 1993 (Morrisey) moves the court for an order (1) deeming this action, filed by Morrisey on June 24, 2024 against defendants Mortgage Assets Management, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation, and Redwood Holdings, LLC (Redwood) on June 24, 2024 (Case No. 24STCV15755) (the Civil Action), and the unlawful detainer action filed by Redwood on June 26, 2024, against Morrisey (Case No. 24PDUD02239) (the Unlawful Detainer Action), to be related cases within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300, and (2) consolidating the Civil Action and Unlawful Detainer Action for all purposes. The court finds that Morrisey did not properly serve the parties in the Civil Action and Unlawful Detainer Action with this motion. A motion to consolidate [m]ust be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated . . . . (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.350, subd. (a)(2)(B).) Morrisey filed and served this motion on the named defendants by mail on July 15, 2024, before the defendants appeared in this action.[1] (July 15, 2024 POS-030, p. 1, ¶¶ 3, 5, and p. 3 Mailing List.) However, because the defendants had not yet appeared in this action, service by mail was improper. Morrisey also did not file a revised proof of service stating that counsel for the defendants were served with this motion following their appearance in this action. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.350, subd. (a)(2)(B).) Moreover, defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation and Mortgage Assets Management, LLC did not file an opposition to this motion or other papers with the court indicating that they had been served with the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. The court further notes that, on August 20, 2024, Redwood filed an opposition to Morriseys motion, stating that, although the proof of service states that Morrisey served Redwoods agent for service of process with this motion by mail, Redwoods agent did not receive the mailing. (Turner Decl., ¶¶ 5-8; Turner Decl., Ex. 2.) As of the date that Redwood filed its opposition, Redwood, its agent for service of process, and its counsel had not been served with Morriseys motion. (Turner Decl., ¶ 9.) The court therefore denies Morriseys motion to relate and consolidate cases, without prejudice to Morriseys filing a revised motion to consolidate that complies with the service requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. ORDER The court denies plaintiff Roberta F. Morrissey, trustee to the Roberta F. Morrissey Trust dated September 15, 1993s motion to relate and consolidate cases, without prejudice. The court orders Roberta F. Morrissey, trustee to the Roberta F. Morrissey Trust dated September 15, 1993 to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 4, 2024 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court [1] Redwood filed a demurrer to the Complaint on July 16, 2024. Defendants PHH Mortgage Corporation and Mortgage Assets Management, LLC filed an answer on July 29, 2024.

Ruling

MARTHA VALDEZ VS MARTHA DIAZ

Sep 05, 2024 |22LBCV01086

Case Number: 22LBCV01086 Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 Dept: S27 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Martha Valdez filed her First Amended Complaint against her daughter, Defendant, Martha Diaz, on 5/18/23. The FAC arose out of Defendants alleged fraudulent transfer of Plaintiffs property to Defendant. The FAC included causes of action for quiet title, declaratory and injunctive relief, intentional misrepresentation (fraud), elder abuse, willful concealment, constructive fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. On 11/28/23, the Court heard a demurrer to the FAC. The Court sustained the demurrer in part and overruled it in part, resulting in Plaintiff filing the operative Second Amended Complaint on 12/18/23. The SAC includes causes of action for quiet title, declaratory and injunctive relief, intentional misrepresentation (fraud), willful concealment, elder abuse, negligence, and civil conspiracy to commit fraud. 2. Demurrer a. Meet and Confer Defense Counsel, Steven J. Renick filed a meet and confer declaration in support of the demurrer. Renick declares that attorney Adam Afshar sent a meet and confer letter and that he is informed and believed that Afshar attempted to contact Plaintiffs attorney by phone and email but was unsuccessful and received no response. The meet and confer letter is not attached to the demurrer. There is no explanation for why Renick, rather than Afshar, filed the declaration, which lacks personal knowledge. Notably, Plaintiffs attorney did not respond, in the opposition to the demurrer, to the accusation that he failed to return meet and confer efforts. The Court notes an ongoing problem with Plaintiffs attorney failing to communicate, failing to address issues in papers, failing to file timely papers, and failing to file complete papers. The Court admonishes Plaintiffs attorney to be thorough in the future in connection with this action if he wishes to avoid imposition of sanctions. The Court is continuing the hearing on the demurrer to require the parties to meet and confer in good faith. The Court will provide guidance, below, concerning the issues to be discussed by Counsel. b. Initial Note Plaintiffs opposition papers are missing page 15. If Plaintiff re-files opposition papers, she must ensure the papers are complete. c. Verification Defendant demurred on the ground that a verification was not attached, and Plaintiff concedes, in opposition, that this is the case. Plaintiff attaches the proposed verification as an exhibit. Defendant, in reply, correctly notes that the verification must be attached to the complaint, and therefore the complaint must be amended. Defendant indicates she may attack the quiet title cause of action substantively if it is verified. The Court asks the parties to meet and confer on ALL issues, including the substance of the quiet title cause of action, before filing a pleading challenge. If the demurrer to the SAC is ultimately heard on its merits (discussed below), Defendant must bring ALL pleading challenges, including to the substance of the quiet title cause of action, in the demurrer. Defendant may not file a piecemeal demurrer attacking one aspect of a claim at a time. d. Specificity The Court previously sustained a demurrer to Plaintiffs fraud-based claims on the ground that they are not pled with the requisite specificity. Notably, the Court did so because Plaintiffs opposition was entirely silent on the issue of the sufficiency of the fraud allegations. Plaintiff amended, and Defendant again raises this challenge. Defendant challenges the fraud, concealment, and negligence causes of action due to lack of specificity. The parties must meet and confer on the following issues: · Is the third cause of action for fraud pled with specificity; · What, if any, specificity is required in connection with the fourth cause of action for concealment; notably, a plaintiff cannot possibly plead when, where, how, and by what means something was concealed, as the nature of the claim is that something was NOT said, as opposed to said; · Is the negligence cause of action a negligent misrepresentation cause of action or a mere negligence cause of action? Depending on which it is, is specificity required or not required? e. Elder Abuse The Court previously sustained a demurrer to the elder abuse cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff was under the age of 65 when Defendant engaged in the allegedly abusive acts. Plaintiff amended her complaint to add various allegations concerning acts that occurred after she was 65. Defendant argues none of these allegations constitute elder abuse because they do not establish taking, retaining, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property. Defendant appears to be incorrect. By way of example, at ¶85, Plaintiff alleges Defendant took and smashed her Ring Camera. Defendant argues this isnt taking, retaining, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property. It seems, however, that this would be taking and destroying personal property. The parties must meet and confer. f. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Defendant correctly notes that the Courts prior order did not permit Plaintiff to add a new cause of action in an amended complaint. The portion of Plaintiffs opposition addressing this issue was not included in her filed opposition papers, as noted above. The parties must meet and confer. The Court would prefer that the parties stipulate to the filing of an additional cause of action rather than requiring a motion for leave to amend if the cause of action can ultimately be properly pled. 3. Motion to Strike Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations, the prayer for attorneys fees and related allegations, and various allegations in the FAC that she contends are irrelevant. Plaintiff failed to file opposition to the motion to strike. Notably, Plaintiff also failed to file opposition to motion to strike directed at the FAC, which resulted in a tentative ruling granting the motion without leave to amend. The Court ultimately agreed to grant leave to amend, but Plaintiff has continued to fail to file opposition. The Court is continuing the hearing on the motion to strike as well as the hearing on the demurrer. If Plaintiff wishes to avoid a court order granting the motion to strike without leave to amend, she must file opposition to the motion to strike. 4. Conclusion The hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike is continued for six weeks, to Thursday, 10/17/24. The parties must meet and confer, in good faith, forthwith. If the parties are able to resolve their issues, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint and Defendant must use the online reservation system to take the matters off calendar. If the parties are unable to resolve their issues, the parties must file all new demurrer, motion to strike, opposition, and reply papers, per Code, addressing each of the issues above. 5. Order to Show Cause There is an OSC on calendar concurrently with the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike today. The Court asks Counsel to make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on the demurrer, motion to strike, and OSC.

Ruling

Angeles Contractor, Inc., et al vs Santa Cruz Hotel, L.P, et al

Sep 03, 2024 |20CV01281

20CV01281ANGELES CONTRACTOR INC. v. SANTA CRUZ HOTEL LP CROSS-DEFENDANT ANGELES CONTRACTOR’S DEMURRER TO SANTA CRUZ HOTEL’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT The demurrer is overruled. Page 1 of 2 Cross-defendant Angeles Contractor argues that Santa Cruz Hotel’s Third AmendedComplaint (TAC) fails to state facts to support these the causes of action for negligence, fraudand negligent misrepresentation and that these claims are barred by California law. However, Santa Cruz Hotel has pled facts indicating that an independent duty of careexists outside the contract for negligence (causing property damage). (TAC ¶¶ 72-79.) Further,Santa Cruz Hotel now specifically alleges the parties, their statements, and sufficient detailsrelated to their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it wassaid or written for supporting its causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation (TAC¶¶ 93-123.) (Kalnoki v. First Am. Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23, 35.) Angeles Contractor’s arguments go to the merits of the causes of action. At this point inthis four-year-old case, the pleadings in this matter must be set so the parties can proceed to trythis case on its merits. Angeles Contractor’s Request for Judicial Notice: Exhibits A and B: Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, Notice of Entry of Stipulated FinalJudgment in People v. Santa Cruz Hotel, LP, Santa Cruz Superior No. 19CV02338: Granted.Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal orderincorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating thetentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, inaccordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if theprevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative issimply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition ofsanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed. Page 2 of 2

Ruling

P.J. McAuliffe Family Partnership, L.P. vs. The Testate or Intestate Successors of Nora McAuliffe, et al.

Sep 03, 2024 |23CV-0202994

SUCCESSORS OF NORA MCAULIFFE, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0202994Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: This is an action to quiet title todormant mineral rights. Plaintiff P.J. McAuliffe Family Partnership, LP brings this motion forjudgment on the pleadings against Defendant John P. “Jack” McAuliffe pursuant to Code of CivilProcedure section 43(c)(1)(A). Plaintiff argues that the First Amended Complaint (FAC) statesfacts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the Defendant and the Answer doesnot state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. The motion is unopposed.Meet and Confer: “The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on thepleadings a declaration stating” the attempts made to meet and confer. CCP § 439(a)(3). TheDeclaration of Michael Ricks provides sufficient evidence of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts.Request for Judicial Notice: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the priorOrders in this case, and that certain requests were deemed admitted pursuant to this Court’s Order,pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d) and 453.Merits of Motion: CCP § 438(c)(1)(A) provides a plaintiff may move for judgment on thepleadings if the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and the answer doesnot state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. The grounds for the motion shallappear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any other matter of which the court may takejudicial notice. CCP § 438(d). The Court may take judicial notice of responses to discoveryrecords pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453. Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485. A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the samefunction as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except asprovided by CCP § 438, the rules governing demurrers apply. Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp.(1998) 67 CA4th 995, 999.Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is the operative pleading. It alleges causes of action for: 1)Quiet Title Against or Termination of Dormant Mineral rights Pursuant to Civ. Code 883.110, etseq., 2) Common Law Abandonment of Mineral Rights, 3) Declaratory Relief.First Cause of Action: Quiet Title or Termination of Dormant Mineral Rights. The owner of realproperty subject to a mineral right may bring an action to terminate the mineral right pursuant tothis article if the mineral right is dormant. Cal. Civ. Code § 883.210. A mineral right is dormantif all of the following conditions are satisfied for a period of 20 years immediately precedingcommencement of the action to terminate the mineral right: (a) There is no production of theminerals and no exploration, drilling, mining, development, or other operations that affect theminerals, whether on or below the surface of the real property or on other property, whether or notunitized or pooled with the real property; (b) No separate property tax assessment is made of themineral right or, if made, no taxes are paid on the assessment; (c) No instrument creating,reserving, transferring, or otherwise evidencing the mineral right is recorded. Cal. Civ. Code §883.220. Plaintiff’s FAC alleges the required conditions have been satisfied. (FAC ¶¶2, 36-39.)Defendant filed a document entitled “Request for Dismissal” on September 20, 2023. The partiesstipulated orally before the Court on March 24, 2024, that this document is deemed the Answerfor both the Original Complaint and the First Amended Complaint. The Answer acknowledgeselement Cal. Civ. Code § 883.220(a) is true and does not address elements (b) or (c). No defensehas been raised. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to the First Causeof Action.Second Cause of Action: Common Law Abandonment of Mineral Rights. “Actions to quiet title,like true declaratory relief actions, are generally equitable in nature. A quiet title action is astatutory action that seeks to declare the rights of the parties in realty. The object of the action isto finally settle and determine, as between the parties, all conflicting claims to the property incontroversy, and to decree to each such interest or estate therein as he may be entitled to. Thepurpose of a quiet title action is to determine any adverse claim to the property that the defendantmay assert, and to declare and define any interest held by the defendant, so that the plaintiff mayhave a decree finally adjudicating the extent of his own interest in the property in controversy.”Weeden v. Hoffman (2021) 70 Cal. App. 5th 269, 291 (internal citations omitted).The Supreme Court of California has held that mineral rights are a type of perpetual profit aprendre, which, like easements, are subject to abandonment. Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 880. “If interests in real property can be and are abandoned, they do not become, as in thecase of personal property, the property of the first appropriator, but instead return to the estate outof which they were carved. The abandonment of a profit a prendre, therefore, because the profitin essence is an easement, does not become subject to the void in ownership that the common lawof land title sought to avoid. If a perpetual right of way or other easement is abandoned, theproperty interest reverts to the servient estate. Similarly, a perpetual right to remove oil and gaswould ordinarily revert to the surface estate, thereby freeing that estate of its burden and permittingits owner more complete utilization and enjoyment of his property.” Id. at 887 (internal citationsomitted).Plaintiff’s FAC alleges Defendants have not produced or attempted to produce the mineral rightsor recorded any instrument evidencing their intention to retain the rights since the 1972 Deed wasrecorded. (FAC ¶ 41.) Plaintiff’s FAC alleges that due to the nonuse and failure to evidence anyintention of retaining the mineral rights, Defendants intended to abandon them. (FAC ¶ 42.)Defendant’s Answer indicates an intent to maintain the mineral rights. (Answer ln.16-18.)However, in its January 25, 2024 Order, this Court deemed admitted Plaintiffs Requests forAdmission, Set One. These admissions establish that Plaintiff conveyed any rights or interestsincluding but not limited to mineral rights in the real property at issue on April 4, 2012. Theadmissions further establish that since April 4, 2012, Defendant has not acquired any rights orinterests, including but not limited to mineral rights, to the real property at issue. These admissionsestablish that Defendant has conveyed any claimed interest in the disputed mineral rights at issue.This does not squarely establish a claim for common law abandonment. Nonetheless, theadmissions do establish that the equitable relief sought by Plaintiff is appropriate.Third Cause of Action: Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for declaratory relief.Declaratory relief is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action. Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App. 4th 166, 173. Plaintiff seeks this Court’s determination that Defendant’s mineral rights inthe subject property have terminated, and have been abandoned, and have therefore merged withthe fee interest in the Property. Based on the foregoing discussion of Plaintiff’s First Cause ofAction for Termination of Dormant Mineral Rights, as well as the Second Cause of Action forAbandonment, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. Additionally, the Courtnotes that its prior Order, dated July 8, 2024, imposed an issue sanction establishing that Defendantindividually and as Trustee of the Leonore McAuliffe 1993 Trust, has no interest in any mineralrights in the Property identified in ¶ 2 of the First Amended Complaint.Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the complaint, the Court normallygrants the opposing side leave to amend its answer unless it appears from the pleadings thatamendment is incapable of otherwise affecting the outcome. Given not just the deficiencies ofMcAuliffe’s answer, but also the Court’s judicially noticed prior orders confirming McAuliffe hasno mineral rights in the property, the Court finds that no amendment will affect the Court’s rulingon this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Leave to amend is therefore not indicated.Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend. Aproposed order has been lodged with the Court and will be executed.

Ruling

RISSMAN vs RISSMAN

Sep 02, 2024 |CVRI2202453

DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOROTHER REAL PROPERTY (OVERCVRI2202453 RISSMAN VS RISSMAN$25,000) OF HOWARD J RISSMAN BYMATTHEW RISSMANTentative Ruling: No tentative will be given. Counsel is required to appear and provide an updateto the court regarding the status of adding all necessary parties.5.DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FORMEDICAL MALPRACTICE (OVERMCLAUGHLIN VS COUNTYCVRI2302520 $25,000) OF LINDA MCLAUGHLIN BYOF RIVERSIDEJOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES,INCTentative Ruling: The unopposed demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.