Jessica Naemi v. Jaspal Padhal

Case Number

23CV04026

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/24/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Defendant Jaspal Padhal’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff Jessica Naemi’s First Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Jessica Naemi: Marlea F. Jarrette and Mario A. Juarez 

For Defendant Jaspal Padhal: Adam Carralejo

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. The demurrer of Defendant Jaspal Padhal, to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, is overruled.

2. The motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint, is denied.

3. Defendant shall file and serve his answer to the first amended complaint no later than February 12, 2024.

Background:

Plaintiff Jessica Naemi filed her original complaint on September 14, 2023, against Defendant Jaspal Padhal, setting forth causes of action for: (1) Quiet Title; (2) To Set Aside Fraudulent Transfer; (3) Conspiracy to Make Fraudulent Transfer; (4) Constructive Trust; (5) Equitable Lien; (6) Resulting Trust; and (7) Declaratory Relief.

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant setting forth causes of action for: (1) To Set Aside Fraudulent Transfer; (2) Conspiracy to Make Fraudulent Transfer; (3) Constructive Trust; (4) Equitable Lien; (5) Resulting Trust; (6) Declaratory Relief; (7) Cancellation of a Written Contract; and (8) Breach of a Written Contract.

As alleged in the FAC:

Plaintiff is currently involved in a divorce proceeding, in this Court, against Angelo Naemi (“Angelo”). (FAC, ¶ 6.) During marriage, Plaintiff and Angelo purchased real property, in Angelo’s name, located at 311 Agnes Avenue, Santa Maria. (FAC, ¶ 7.) Angelo acquired the property with community property funds during marriage and Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the property. (FAC, ¶ 9.)

Angelo transferred title to the property to Defendant through a grant deed that was recorded on June 23, 2020. (FAC, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff believes that the transfer was fraudulent and made without adequate consideration. (Ibid.)

Through discovery in the family law case, Plaintiff has discovered that after the transfer, Angelo continued to collect rents on the property and continues to pay the mortgage on the property. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Following the fraudulent transfer, Angelo made payments to Defendant in approximately the amount of the down payment Defendant paid. (FAC, ¶ 13.)

Defendant was deposed in the family law case and has since admitted that he made several false statements in the deposition. (FAC, ¶¶ 14, 15.) Defendant has also admitted that Angelo told him what to say at the deposition. (FAC, ¶ 16.) Defendant has acknowledged that he was “merely a straw buyer” of the property. (FAC, ¶ 17.) From June 23, 2020 to the present, Defendant continues to falsely claim an interest in the property. (Ibid.)

Defendant is a long-time friend of Angelo. (FAC, ¶ 18.) Plaintiff believes that Defendant went on title to the property solely to assist Angelo in hiding community property assets from Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶ 20.)

Defendant now demurs to the FAC on the grounds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”) and that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant because Plaintiff waived her interest in the property as part of a judgment of this Court.

Defendant also seeks to strike item 8 from Plaintiff’s prayer for relief and item 9 from Plaintiff’s prayer for relief.

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer and motion to strike.

Analysis

Demurrer

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the partial judgment filed in the family law case involving Plaintiff and Angelo, in Case No. 18FL03016, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). The Court will take judicial notice of the document.

“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the Court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) “Our consideration of the facts alleged includes ‘those evidentiary facts found in recitals of exhibits attached to [the] complaint.’ [Citation.]” (Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1250.)

“[A] Court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

“To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the Plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

As to Defendant’s first grounds for demurrer, that the FAC fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Defendant under the UVTA, Defendant does not specify which cause of action the demurrer applies to. Because Defendant failed to specify which cause of action they are demurring to, the only reasonable interpretation is that Defendant means for the argument to apply to the entire FAC.

To the extent that Defendant is attempting to apply the argument to the entire complaint:

“If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer. “ ‘[W]e are not limited to Plaintiffs’ theory of recovery in testing the sufficiency of their complaint against a demurrer, but instead must determine if the factual allegations of the complaint are adequate to state a cause of action under any legal theory. The Courts of this state have . . . long since departed from holding a Plaintiff strictly to the ‘form of action’ he has pleaded and instead have adopted the more flexible approach of examining the facts alleged to determine if a demurrer should be sustained.’ ” [Citations.]” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.)

If there are several causes of action in a complaint, a demurrer to the entire complaint may be overruled if any cause of action is properly stated. (Warren v. Atchinson, T.&S.F. Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36.) Here, there are eight causes of action contained in the FAC. Reading the complaint as a whole, and its subparts in context, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff’s FAC does not state facts to constitute any cause of action.

Defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that the UVTA bars all of Plaintiff’s claims. The UVTA is not a basis for Plaintiff’s claims and is, in fact, not even mentioned in the FAC. Further, Defendant improperly argues the merits of the case, and asks the Court to weigh evidence, rather than addressing any claimed defect in the FAC. As such, the demurrer based on the UVTA will be overruled.

Defendant’s second argument, that Plaintiff waived any interest in the subject property, is simply untrue. The partial judgment, of which the Court has taken judicial notice pursuant to Defendant’s request, makes quite clear that the Court has retained jurisdiction over the property. (Partial Judgment, ¶ 9.) The only thing that Plaintiff waived, with respect to that property, was reimbursement for the sales proceeds received by Angelo and rental income. (Partial Judgment, ¶ 19.) There is no other reasonable interpretation of the language.

The demurrer on Defendant’s second stated grounds will be overruled.

            Motion to Strike

“The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Irrelevant matter” includes a “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(3), (c).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

“[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Before filing a motion to strike, moving party's counsel must meet and confer, in person or by telephone, with counsel for the party who filed the pleading in an attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading and obviate the need for filing a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a). The meet and confer letter attached as exhibit A to the declaration of defense counsel does not address any issues presented in the motion to strike. It only addresses the issues relative to the demurrer. However, the motion will not be denied on the basis of Defendant’s failure to meet and confer as required.

“A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (a).)

Defendant states the following in his notice of motion to strike:

“1. Move to strike item number 8 of the Prayer because Mrs. Naemi alleges no legal basis to be declared the sole owner of the Subject Property. (Page 10, line 10 of the First Amended Complaint)

“2. Move to strike item number 9 of the Prayer because Mrs. Naemi alleges no legal basis for the Subject Property to be transferred to her. (Page 10, line 11 of the First Amended Complaint)” (Notice of Motion, p. 2, ll. 20-25.)

Defendant did not comply with the notice requirements. He was required to quote, in full, the portions sought to be stricken.

In addition to the procedural defects for failure to comply with relevant statutes, defendants provide no authority for striking the items from plaintiff’s prayer for relief. Defendants simply, and improperly, argue the merits of plaintiff’s claims.

Defendants have failed to meet their burden and their motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s FAC will be denied.