On 04/11/2018 RONALD KNIGHT filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against STELLA KNIGHT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Other.
****9118
04/11/2018
Other
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Compton Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MAURICE A. LEITER
KNIGHT RONALD
PEREZ SANDRA
FAVELA FRANCISCO
FAVELA VICTORIA
THE BAY LION GROUP LTD CO.
THE DANIEL LEE BIDDLE SR. LIVING TRUST
KNIGHT STELLA
DOES 1-100
KNIGHT THOMAS
ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN ALL PERSONS
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
DOMINGUEZ DARIN R.
DOMINGUEZ DARIN ROBERT
GRANATO FRANK D.
GRANATO FRANK D
7/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
3/18/2020: Substitution of Attorney
11/13/2019: Case Management Statement
11/15/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION FRANK D. GRANATO
9/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE BY THOMAS KNIG...)
7/16/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES OF THOMAS KNIGHT IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
7/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUD...)
6/13/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment
6/13/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
6/13/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
5/14/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NON-SERVICE
5/9/2019: Notice of Ruling
2/27/2019: Case Management Statement - Case Management Statement Updated
2/13/2019: Answer
4/11/2018: Notice of Lis Pendens
11/19/2018: Notice of Ruling
8/23/2018: Case Management Statement -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Prosecute) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Jury Trial ((Time estimate 4 days)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by RONALD KNIGHT (Plaintiff)
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Prosecute) - Held - Continued
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal f...)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued
DocketCase Management Statement
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by THOMAS KNIGHT (Defendant); SANDRA PEREZ (Defendant)
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by THOMAS KNIGHT (Defendant); SANDRA PEREZ (Defendant)
DocketProof of Service by Mail
DocketNotice of Continuance (OF HEARING); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Lis Pendens; Filed by RONALD KNIGHT (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
DocketSummons; Filed by null
DocketComplaint; Filed by RONALD KNIGHT (Plaintiff)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by RONALD KNIGHT (Plaintiff)
Case Number: TC029118 Hearing Date: January 09, 2020 Dept: A
# 10. Ronald Knight v. Stella Knight, et al.
Case No.: TC029118
Matter on calendar for: Demurrer to FAC
Tentative ruling:
Background
This is a quiet title action involving an alleged forged deed. Plaintiff Ronald Knight alleges Defendants Stella Knight, Thomas Knight, The Daniel Lee Biddle, Sr., Living Trust, Francisco Favela, Victoria Favela, and Sandra Perez forged and fraudulently recorded. The property is located at 1010 Kay Street, Compton, California 90221. Plaintiff discovered the deed when the property was almost sold.
The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:
Quiet Title;
Cancellation of Deed;
Fraud;
Constructive Trust; and
Declaratory Relief
Defendant Thomas Knight and Sandra Perez now demur to the FAC. An opposition was filed and considered. No reply has been filed as of January 7, 2020.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules the demurrer.
Standard
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)
Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.) Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)
Analysis
Fraud
Defendants argue the FAC does not possess the required specificity to allege fraud. The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be pled with specificity. (Id. at 645.) This “necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means representations were tendered.” (Ibid.) The FAC and the attached deed make it clear that Plaintiff alleges Defendants fraudulently forged a deed transferring the property from Plaintiff to Defendants Stella Knight and Thomas Knight, with Defendants Angela Mosby and Sandra Perez participating in the scheme by witnessing the forged deed. (FAC ¶ 30.) This is sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud.
The demurrer to the FAC is overruled.
Ruling
The demurrer to the FAC is overruled. Defendants to file and serve their answer within 15 days.
Next dates:
Notice: