Pending - Other Pending
ANN H. PARK
LO KELVIN J.
CHENG HEIDI M.
SHIODA GENE HITOSHI
2/14/2022: Notice of Continuance
2/14/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
12/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC); MANDATORY SETTLEMENT C...)
12/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MS...)
9/29/2021: Notice of Ruling
11/1/2021: Unknown - FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
9/24/2021: Order - COURT RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER (HEARING HELD 8-26-21)
9/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 09/24/2021
9/24/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)
9/20/2021: Notice of Ruling
9/16/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
8/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))
8/18/2021: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS CROSS-COMPLAINT
8/18/2021: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS CROSS-COMPLAINT
8/11/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
8/13/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT
8/13/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
6/22/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
Hearing03/28/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Trial Setting ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/28/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department P at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department P, Ann H. Park, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) (Further) - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference (and OSC reCross-Complaint) - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 11:38 AM in Department F; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Continuance; Filed by Gabriela Ruiz (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department C; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department P, Ann H. Park, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Gabriela Ruiz (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Jeremy Rivarde (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Gabriela Ruiz (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Gabriela Ruiz (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Gabriela Ruiz (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Jeremy Rivarde (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jeremy Rivarde (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Jeremy Rivarde (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: *******0142 Hearing Date: August 26, 2021 Dept: C
RIVARDE v. RUIZ
CASE NO.: *******0142
I. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant JEREMY RIVARDE’s Demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Complainant GABRIELA RUIZ’s Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend in part and SUSTAINED without leave to amend in part.
II. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant JEREMY RIVARDE’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant/Cross-Complainant GABRIELA RUIZ’s Cross-Complaint is MOOT.
Moving Party to give Notice.
This action for partition of real property was filed by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant JEREMY RIVARDE (“Rivarde”) on March 10, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the Subject Cross-Complaint (“X-C”) was filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant GABRIELA RUIZ (“Ruiz”). The X-C alleges, in pertinent part, “Wanting to make sure that their family home stayed within the family and would be kept by RUIZ, Norma Ruiz agreed to sell the Subject Property to her daughter RUIZ…. [¶] However, at the time, as RIVARDE had better credit than RUIZ and could get better financing terms, RIVARDE offered to RUIZ that he would be a co-applicant with her for a mortgage loan, but assured her that he did not and would not assert any ownership interest in the Subject Property.” (X-C ¶¶8-9.) Ruiz further alleges that Norma Ruiz signed a grant deed at the direction of Rivarde which “provided that the Subject Property was being conveyed to RUIZ and RIVARDE, as 50 / 50 tenants in common. RUIZ and Norma Ruiz did not understand what this meant, but RIVARDE explained to them that the Grant Deed was necessary only to secure the financing and that again, he understood that he had no ownership interest in the Subject Property and that the Subject Property would belong to RUIZ. [¶] RUIZ and Norma Ruiz did not understand the legal implications of the Grant Deed and, trusting RIVARDE, executed the Grant Deed pursuant to RIVARDE’s instructions.” (X-C ¶¶11-12.) The Grant Deed is dated June 15, 2015. (X-C ¶11.)
The X-C asserts the following causes of action: (1) Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Quiet Title; (3) Cancellation of Instrument; and (4) Restitution – Unjust Enrichment.
Rivarde demurs to all four causes of action.
First Cause of Action – Intentional Misrepresentation
The elements of a cause of action for intentional fraud are 1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); 2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); 3) intent to defraud or induce reliance; 4) justifiable reliance; and 5) damages. (See Cal. Civ. Code ;1709.)
Fraud actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216.) Fraud must be pleaded with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in the case of a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the representations, their authority to speak on behalf of the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when the representation was made. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)
Ruiz’s allegations are insufficient. Specifically, Ruiz has not alleged when and where the purported representations were made. Moreover, as argued in the instant Demurrer, representations must generally relate to past or existing facts; opinions about future events do not constitute intentional misrepresentations. (See Neu-Visions Sports v. Soren (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 303, 308.) As alleged, Ruiz’s allegations fall into the category of “future events” which is not actionable as an intentional misrepresentation.
The Demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.
Second Cause of Action – Quiet Title
The elements for a quiet title action are: (1) a description of the property; (2) Plaintiff’s title or interest and the basis; (3) defendant is asserting an adverse claim or antagonistic property interest; (4) date as of which the determination is sought; and (5) prayer for determination of title. (CCP ;761.020.)
The demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend. Ruiz has not alleged an entitlement to 100% of the Subject Property.
Third Cause of Action – Cancellation of Instrument
The elements of a cause of action for instrument cancelation are: (1) a written instrument; (2) a reasonable apprehension that it may cause serious injury to someone; (3) as to whom it is void or voidable. (Cal Civ. Code ;3412; Kroeker v. Hurlbert (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 261, 266.)
Ruiz concedes in Opposition that this claim is dependent upon the viability of her first cause of action for fraud. Consequently, the Demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend for the same reasons articulated under the first cause of action.
Fourth Cause of Action – Unjust Enrichment
As to the fourth cause of action for unjust enrichment, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to state a valid cause of action. (See Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1307.)
Statute of Limitations
“A complaint showing on its face the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations is subject to general demurrer. [Citation.]” (Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 990, 995.) “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred”; to raise the statute of limitations by demurrer, “the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint….” (Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 303, 321.) “The running of the statute must appear ‘clearly and affirmatively’ from the dates alleged. It is not sufficient that the complaint might be barred. [Cite.]” (Roman v. County of Los Angeles (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 316, 324.) “If the dates establishing the running of the statute of limitations do not clearly appear in the complaint, there is no ground for general demurrer.” (Id. at 324-325.)
Rivarde contends that Ruiz’s first, second, and third claims are time-barred because the Grant Deed at issue was executed in 2015, and this X-C was not filed until April 27, 2021. However, the face of the X-C does not conclusively establish that first-third causes of action are time-barred. Consequently, the Demurrer is not sustained on this basis.
The Motion to Strike is rendered MOOT by the Court’s ruling above.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases