Mahdi M Abu-Omar et al vs Southern California Edison Company et al

Case Number

24CV06569

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/03/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

For all the reasons discussed herein, Southern California Edison Company’s demurrer to plaintiff’s verified complaint is overruled. Southern California Edison Company shall file and serve its answer to the complaint no later than October 17, 2025.

Background:

This action commenced on November 22, 2024, by the filing of the verified complaint by Mahdi H. Abu-Omar and Kristen L. Abu-Omar, Trustees of the Abuomar Family 2022 Revocable Family Trust Established Under Revocable Trust Agreement Dated March 16, 2022 (plaintiffs) against defendants Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and Frontier California, Inc. (Frontier) (collectively “defendants”) for: (1) Quiet Title, (2) Inverse Condemnation, (3) Declaratory Relief, (4) Private Nuisance, and (5) Trespass.

As alleged in the complaint:

Plaintiffs are, and at all relevant times have been, the owners of real property located at 1036 San Deigo Road, Santa Barbara (the “property”). (Compl., ¶ 1.)

Defendants use and maintain power lines and a utility pole on the property. (Compl., ¶ 6.) Although SCE claims to have an easement on the property for use of utilities, SCE does not have any easement rights on title in the Official Records of the County of Santa Barbara. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 7.) Frontier also uses the utility pole by way of alleged rights from a contractual relationship with SCE. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Over time, defendants have added additional utility lines, such that the utility pole is unsafe, and plaintiffs’ ocean view is obstructed. (Compl., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs request that the court find that defendants have no easement or other rights over the property and seek monetary damages. (Compl., Prayer for Relief.)

On January 15, 2025, Frontier answered the verified complaint, admitting some allegations and denying others. Frontier also asserts 14 affirmative defenses.

On February 27, 2025, SCE filed the present demurrer to each cause of action contained in the complaint on statute of limitations grounds.

Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer.

Analysis:

As an initial matter, by way of reply, SCE objects to plaintiffs’ opposition as being untimely filed and requests that it be disregarded. The opposition was filed and served on September 24, 2025, which is seven court days before the hearing. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), the opposition was due at least nine court days prior to the hearing. Plaintiffs offer no explanation for the late filing. “ ‘[A] trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers.’ ” (Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1186, 1210.) As SCE filed its reply, addressing the issues raised by the opposition, and has shown no prejudice by the late filing, the court will exercise its discretion and consider the opposition. However, plaintiffs are cautioned that any future filings that are untimely may be rejected.

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

“(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

“[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.)

SCE’s argues that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because the causes of action are time-barred. SCE argues that the causes of action for quiet title and inverse condemnation are barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 321, that the causes of action for nuisance and trespass are barred by section 338, and that the cause of action for declaratory relief fails because it is dependent on the other causes of action.

In support of the demurrer, SCE requests that the court take judicial notice, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, of: (1) A grant deed by Sharon Kennedy, Trustee of The Peter and Christel Hann Trust/Surviving Spouse’s Trust and Trustee of The Peter and Christel Hann/Family Bypass Trust to Mahdi M. Abu-Omar and Kristen L. Abu-Omar, as joint tenants, recorded on March 7, 2019; (2) A Trust Transfer Deed by Mahdi M. Abu-Omar and Kristen L. Abu-Omar, as joint tenant, to become Trustees of The Abu-Omar Family 2022 Revocable Trust, recorded on March 16, 2022; and (3) Building permits issued by the City of Santa Barbara from March 11, 2019 to May 28, 2019 for the property.

“ ‘Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law.’ ” (Evid. Code, § 450.) Matters that are subject to judicial notice are listed in Evidence Code sections 451 and 452. A matter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if the matter is reasonably beyond dispute. [Citation.] Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable. (StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9 (StorMedia).) StorMedia stated: “ ‘In ruling on a demurrer, a court may consider facts of which it has taken judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) This includes the existence of a document. When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. [Citation.]’ ” (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113 (Freemont).)

“The hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of documents whose truthfulness or proper interpretation are disputable.” (Freemont, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 114.)

“In short, a court cannot by means of judicial notice convert a demurrer into an incomplete evidentiary hearing in which the demurring party can present documentary evidence and the opposing party is bound by what that evidence appears to show.” (Freemont, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 115.)

The court will take judicial notice of the documents. However, the building permits are of little value. They are open to various interpretations and there is no evidence presented showing that they are accurate. Further, there is no evidence that any of the projects contemplated by the permits were completed. Even if SCE had presented credible declarations attesting to the accuracy of the permits, this is a demurrer. It is not a motion for summary judgment.

As noted above, SCE’s arguments are based entirely upon arguments that the causes of action are time-barred.

“ ‘[I]t is difficult for demurrers based on the statute of limitations to succeed because (1) trial and appellate courts treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded and (2) resolution of the statute of limitations issue can involve questions of fact. Furthermore, when the relevant facts are not clear such that the cause of action might be, but is not necessarily, time-barred, the demurrer will be overruled. [Citation.] Thus, for a demurrer based on the statute of limitations to be sustained, the untimeliness of the lawsuit must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and matters judicially noticed.’ ” [Citation.]” (Schmier v. City of Berkeley (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 549, 554.)

Despite SCE’s argument that the service pole and associated powerlines at issue were installed and known to plaintiffs by March 27, 2019, there is nothing presented that would allow this court to sustain SCE’s demurrer based on that argument. The only evidence that SCE points to regarding that date being relevant are the building permits and deeds. Again, this is a demurrer and the building permits, even if they did constitute properly authenticated and admissible evidence, are open to interpretation and do not show that plaintiffs actions are time-barred.

What the complaint does state is that defendants use and maintain power lines and a utility pole on the property, and that over time defendants have added additional utility lines. No dates for any of the alleged acts are set forth in the complaint.

Both SCE and plaintiffs set forth arguments regarding the applicability of the statutes of limitations for each cause of action. The court need not reach those arguments, at the pleading stage, because there is nothing in the complaint, or matters of which this court has taken judicial notice, that definitively demonstrates when any cause of action accrued.

Based on what the court is permitted to consider in ruling on a demurrer: While plaintiffs’ action might be barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, it is not necessarily barred. As such, the demurrer will be overruled, and SCE will be ordered to file and serve its answer.