Hearing DemurrerCal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 4, 2019SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Efren Cruz et al vs Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM 19CV345651 Hearing Type: Hearing: Demurrer Date 0f Hearing: 10/03/2019 Comments: 4 Heard By: Pierce, Mark H Location: Department 2 Courtroom Reporter: - N0 Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Mai Jansson Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - N0 appearance. Tentative adopted as follows: This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs are the owners 0f real property located at 3217 Polton Hall Court, San Jose, California ( Property ). (FAC, 3, 8, 19-21, & 26.) Plaintiffs obtained a mortgage loan secured by a deed of trust ( DOT) 0n the Property. (Id. at 1, 8, 11, & 19-22.) The DOT was eventually assigned t0 JP Morgan Chase Bank, which has a lien 0n the Property. (Id. at 8, 19, & 21.) SPS, the loan servicer, allegedly recorded a lien 0n the Property even though Plaintiffs d0 not owe it money and it does not have a beneficial interest in the mortgage. (FAC, 2, 8, 11, 12, 19, 30, & 31.) A dispute has allegedly arisen regarding the parties that should have liens of the Property and Plaintiffs seek a declaration regarding the identity 0f the valid lien holders. (Id. at 23 & 26.) Plaintiffs further allege that SPS has reported further false items 0n [their] credit t0 the Credit Reporting Agencies, illegally foreclosed 0n the Property, and refused t0 provide an accounting of the amount owed on the mortgage. (Id. at 14, 19, 26, 33, & 36.) Plaintiffs seek an order restraining SPS from further reporting false liens, reporting false money owed as a lien 0n the [Property], from clouding [their] title , and from transferring, encumbering 0r selling [the Property]. (Id. at 28 & 38.) Based 0n the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC against SPS, alleging causes 0f action for: (1) declaratory relief; and (2) injunctive relief. On July 30, 2019, SPS filed the instant demurrer. Plaintiffs filed an opposition t0 the demurrer 0n August 6, 2019. On September 24, 2019, SPS filed a reply. Discussion SPS demurs t0 the first and second causes 0f action 0f the FAC 0n the ground 0f failure t0 allege facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subd. (e).) Printed: 10/3/2019 10/03/2019 Hearing: Demurrer r 19CV345651 Page 1 0f4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER I. Request forJudicial Notice In connection with its moving papers, SPS asks the Court t0 take judicial notice 0f various recorded documents pertaining t0 the Property, court documents filed in bankruptcy cases initiated by Plaintiffs, and the docket in the case of Efren Dela Cruz and Evelyn Dela Cruz v. Select Portfolio Servicing, |nc., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, Case N0. 5: 19-CV-00283-LHK). As t0 the recorded documents pertaining t0 the Property, the law is clear that the Court may take judicial notice 0f fact 0f the documents recordation, the date the documents were recorded and executed, the parties t0 the transaction reflected in the recorded documents, the documents legally operative language, and any legal effect that can be deduced from the face 0f the documents. (See Evid. Code, 452, subds. (c), (h); see also Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-265 [ifthere is n0 genuine dispute regarding the recorded document s authenticity, a court may take judicial notice of the fact 0f a document's recordation, the date the document was recorded and executed, the parties t0 the transaction reflected in a recorded document, and the document s legally operative language, assuming there is n0 genuine dispute regarding the document s authenticity. From this, the court may deduce and rely upon the legal effect 0f the recorded document, when that effect is clear from its face ], disapproved 0n other grounds in Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp. (2016) 62 Ca|.4th 919 [ [t]he official act 0f recordation and the common use of a notary public in the execution 0f such documents assure their reliability, and the maintenance 0f the documents in the recorder s office makes their existence and text capable 0f ready confirmation, thereby placing such documents beyond reasonable dispute ].) The bankruptcy court records and the docket in the federal action are referenced only provide background information and are not relevant t0 a material issue raised on demurrer. Therefore, the Court declines t0 take judicial notice 0f those documents as they are not helpful 0r necessary t0 resolving the pending demurrer. (See Silverado Modjeska Recreation & Park Dist. v. County 0f Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 307, fn. 18 [ There is a precondition t0 the taking ofjudicial notice in either its mandatory or permissive form any matter t0 bejudicially noticed must be relevant t0 a material issue. [Citations.] ].) Accordingly, SPS s request forjudicial notice is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. The request is DENIED as t0 the bankruptcy court records and the docket in the federal action. The request is GRANTED as t0 the recorded documents pertaining to the Property. ||. Legal Standard The function 0f a demurrer is t0 test the legal sufficiency ofa pleading. (Trs. Of Capital Wholesale Elec. Etc. Fund v. Shearson Lehman Bros. (1990) 221 Cal.App3d 617, 621.) Consequently, [a] demurrer reaches only t0 the contents 0f the pleading and such matters as may be considered under the doctrine ofjudicial notice [citation]. (Hilltop Properties, Inc. v. State (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 349, 353; see Code Civ. Proc., 430.30, subd. (a).) It is not the ordinary function 0f a demurrer t0 test the truth 0f the allegations [in the challenged pleading] 0r the accuracy with which [the plaintiff] describes the defendant s conduct. . [Citation] Thus, the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. [Citation] [Citations.] (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 958.) However, while [a] demurrer admits all facts properly pleaded, [it does] not [admit] contentions, deductions 0r conclusions 0f law 0r fact. Printed: 10/3/2019 10/03/2019 Hearing: Demurrer r 19CV345651 Page 2 0f4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER (George v. Automobile Club 0f Southern California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1120.) |||. First Cause 0f Action SPS argues that Plaintiffs first cause 0f action for declaratory relief fails t0 state a claim because Plaintiffs appear t0 be seeking a declaration that SPS and WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA6 (the Trust ) have n0 liens 0n the Property, the judicially noticeable documents show that Trust has a lien 0n the Property, and SPS does not have a lien 0n the Property. (Mem. Ps. & As., p. 7:4-9.) An action for declaratory relief is codified in Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1060. A party must plead two essential elements: (1) a proper subject 0f declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating t0 the rights 0r obligations 0f a party. [Citation] (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.Apthh 527, 546.) A general demurrer is usually not an appropriate method for testing the merits 0f a declaratory relief action, because the plaintiff is entitled t0 a declaration 0f rights even if it is adverse to the plaintiff s interest. [Citation] (Qualified Patients Ass n v. City 0f Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 751 (Qualified); Centex Homes v St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. C0. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 29 (Centex); Western Homes, Inc. v. Herbert Ketell, Inc. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 142, 146.) It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to sustain a demurrer t0 a legally sufficient complaint for declaratory relief even if the trial court concludes that the plaintiff is not entitled t0 a favorable declaration. (Qualified, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 756; Centex, supra, 237 CalApp.4th at p. 29.) Here, SPS does not contend, 0r otherwise demonstrate, that the first cause of action fails t0 plead the essential elements 0f a claim for declaratory relief. Rather, SPS appears t0 assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled t0 a declaration in their favor. Thus, SPS fails t0 demonstrate that the first cause 0f action does not state a legally sufficient claim for declaratory relief. Accordingly, SPS s demurrer to the first cause 0f action on the ground 0f failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause 0f action is OVERRULED. IV. Second Cause 0f Action SPS argues that the Court should sustain its demurrer t0 the second cause 0f action for injunctive relief because injunctive relief is not a recognized cause 0f action. It is true that injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause 0f action. (Allen v. City 0f Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 65 (A|Ien).) A cause 0f action must exist before a court may grant a request for injunctive relief. (County 0f Del Norte v. City 0f Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 973, 84 Ca|.Rptr.2d 179; City 0f South Pasadena v. Department 0f Transportation (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293 [ A permanent injunction is merely a remedy for a proven cause 0f action. It may not be issued if the underlying cause of action is not established. ]; Camp v. Board 0f Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal.App3d 334, 356.) While a party may obtain an Printed: 10/3/2019 10/03/2019 Hearing: Demurrer r 19CV345651 Page 3 0f4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER injunction if he 0r she is otherwise entitled t0 such relief, a court may nonetheless sustain a demurrer t0 a cause of action for injunctive relief because it is not actually a cause of action. (Allen, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 65.) Accordingly, SPS s demurrer t0 the second cause 0f action 0n the ground 0f failure t0 allege facts sufficient t0 constitute a cause 0f action is SUSTAINED without leave t0 amend. Printed: 10/3/2019 10/03/2019 Hearing: Demurrer r 19CV345651 Page 4 0f 4
