Hearing Demurrer

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.June 7, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Ron Ronen et al vs First American Title Insurance Co. et Hearing Start Time; 9:00 AM al 21CV382740 Hearing Type: Hearing: Demurrer Date of Hearing: 10/19/2021 Comments: 3 Heard By: Takaichi, Drew C Location: Department 2 Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Farris Bryant Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Ada-Saucedo, Alexa Plaintiff Ronen, Ron V. Plaintiff Exhibits: - to the Complaint by Def Rinconada Hills Association (Jackson L. Stogner) 7-19-21 The following attorney(s) appear via CourtCaII: Frederick A. Haist For: Defendant(s), JP Morgan Chase Bank Jackson Stogner for Defendant(s), Rinconada Hills Association Tentative Ruling is contested by Defendant, Rinconada Hills. Matter is heard/argued. The Tentative Ruling is adopted. See below. The Court will prepare the order. Calendar lines 3-4 Case Name: Ron V. Ronen, et al. v. First American Title Insurance Co., et al. Case No.2 21-CV-382740 Special Motion to Strike and Demurrer to the Complaint by Defendant Rinconada Hills Association Factual and Procedural Background This appears to be an action for fraud and wrongful foreclosure. Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 1 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER According to the operative complaint, plaintiffs Ron V. Ronen ( Ronen ) and Alexa Ada-Saucedo ( Ada-Saucedo ) (collectively, Plaintiffs ) (seIf-represented), husband and wife, reside at real property located at 121 Vista Del Lago in Los Gatos, California. (Complaint at 6, 31.) Plaintiff Ronen purchased the subject property on January 28, 1994. (Id. at 31.) While difficult to determine, Plaintiffs allege multiple defendants, including mostly banks and other financial institutions, intentionally conned, tricked, and maliciously deceived plaintiff Ronen into signing fraudulent documents and instruments in connection with the subject property. (Complaint at 35.) In particular, Plaintiffs allege defendants misrepresented material facts in the origination and servicing of a loan and intentionally presented and recorded false fraudulent instruments. (Id. at 119-120.) Plaintiffs contend such unlawful actions will ultimately conclude with foreclosure of the subject property. Finally, plaintiff Ronen alleges he was intentionally attacked on his own property and outside several times resulting in physical injuries by defendants so he would not discover the fraud. (Complaint at 42.) On June 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) damages for financial harm; (3) injunctive relief; and (4) declaratory relief. Defendant Rinconada Hills Association ( RHA) has filed the following motions presently before the court: a special motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint. RHA submitted a request for judicial notice in conjunction with the special motion to strike. Plaintiffs filed written opposition. Defendant RHA filed reply papers. A case management conference is set for October 19, 2021. Special Motion to Strike Defendant RHA moves to strike the complaint on the ground that the pleading arises from protected activity and Plaintiffs will be unable to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits. Procedural Issue As a preliminary matter, the court notes Plaintiffs opposition is procedurally defective because it is 44 pages in length and, thus, exceeds the mandated page limit. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d) [no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages, except in a summaryjudgment or adjudication motion].) Because it is an oversized memorandum, it is considered in the same manner as a Iate-filed paper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(g).) The court has discretion to refuse to consider a Iate-filed paper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).) Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 2 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER As stated above, an opposing memorandum in response to a special motion to strike or demurrer shall not exceed 15 pages in length. Thus, the fact that Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of approximately 44 pages is undoubtedly a violation of the rules of court. Nor are Plaintiffs excused from complying with court rules and procedures because of their self-representation status. Under the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. (Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898; Gray v. Justice s Court (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 420, 423.) [S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.] (Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.) Therefore, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98; Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193 [seIf-represented party held to the same restrictive procedural rules as an attorney ].) That said, in deference to the policy that matters should be decided on their merits, the court, in its discretion, will consider the opposition despite the aforementioned defect. (See Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 696 [policy of the law is to have every litigated case tried upon its merits].) The court however admonishes Plaintiffs to comply with court rules and procedures with respect to future filings. Any future non-compliance and the court will consider treating Plaintiffs filings as a late filed paper and disregard them in their entirety. Also, if Plaintiffs desire to file a memorandum in excess of the mandated page limit, they should comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.113(e). Request for Judicial Notice In support of the special motion to strike, defendant RHA requests judicial notice ofthe Abstract ofJudgment filed by RHA in a 2015 lawsuit filed by plaintiff Ronen in Santa Clara County (case no. 2015-1-CV-283825). (See Request for Judicial Notice at Ex. A.) The court may take judicial notice of this exhibit as a record of the superior court under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). (Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 [a court may take judicial notice of its own records if they are relevant to issues of the case at hand].) Accordingly, the request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Timeliness The court notes that defendant RHA filed an untimely special motion to strike to the complaint. An anti-SLAPP motion may be filed within 6O days of the service of the complaint or, in the court s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (f).) The purpose of the time limitation is to allow defendant to test the foundation of the plaintiff s action before having to devote its time, energy and resources to combating a meritless lawsuit. (Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 772, 783 (Platypus).) In addition, the statutory deadline seeks to avoid tactical manipulation of stays that attend anti-SLAPP proceedings. (|bid.) All discovery is automatically stayed once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (g).) Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 3 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER A court enjoys considerable discretion in determining whether to allow [a] late filing of an anti-SLAPP motion. (Platypus, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 787.) However, the court must exercise this discretion consistent with the purposes of the statute and must be mindful that the 60-day deadline is the general rule. (Id. at pp. 775-776, 782-784, 787.) [T]he Legislature s act in allowing an interlocutory appeal of the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is clearly tied to the fact that the statute contemplates that most such motions will be filed within 60 days of the filing of the complaint. (Id. at p. 787.) Thus, a trial court must be wary about freely granting a party the right to file an anti-SLAPP motion past the 60-day deadline. (|bid.) In determining whether to permit a late motion, the most important consideration is whether the filing advances the anti- SLAPP statute s purpose of examining the merits of covered lawsuits in the early stages of the proceedings. (Id. at pp. 775-776, 782-784, 787; see Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 (Chitsazzadeh).) Other relevant factors include the length of the delay, the reasons for the late filing, and any undue prejudice to the plaintiff. (See Platypus, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 787.) Although a court may wish to consider the merits of the motion to determine whether the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute would best be served if the court considered the merits of and granted the motion, the court has the discretion to deny a motion filed after the 60-day deadline without considering the merits of the motion. (Chitsazzadeh, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 682.) Here, Plaintiff served defendant RHA with the complaint on June 7, 2021. Thereafter, defendant RHA filed the instant special motion to strike on August 16, 2021, beyond the 60-day deadline required by statute. The moving papers do not provide any explanation for the delay in filing the motion. Nor did defendant RHA make any request with the court to file a late anti-SLAPP motion. The court notes also that defendant RHA filed a demurrer to the complaint on July 19, 2021, almost a month earlier than the filing ofthe special motion to strike. Thus, RHA could have brought its special motion to strike along with the demurrer if it truly believed Plaintiffs lawsuit lacked any merit. In fact, it would have been more judicious to seek the anti-SLAPP motion first because of the nature of the request. (See Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 613 [unlike demurrers or motions to strike, which are designed to eliminate sham or facially meritless allegations, at the pleading stage a SLAPP motion, like a summaryjudgment motion, pierces the pleadings and requires an evidentiary showing]; see also Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1295 (Salma) [a SLAPP plaintiff does not have a right to amend a cause of action that has been dismissed pursuant to section 425.16].) That said, it is still early in the proceedings as this action, having been filed on June 7, 2021, has been around just over five months. Although the motion was untimely filed, the length of delay was minimal, accounting for only several days. And, other than the filing of the demurrer, there is nothing before the court to suggest the parties have been actively engaged in devoting time, energy, and resources toward the lawsuit. For example, there are no discovery requests or other motions pending before the court with respect to these parties. Nor does there appear to be any prejudice toward Plaintiffs in addressing the special motion to strike. After weighing and balancing these factors, the court will exercise its discretion and consider the untimely special motion to strike on its merits. The court admonishes defense counsel to timely file and serve future motions in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. Legal Standard Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 4 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 provides for a special motion to strike when a plaintiff s claims arise from certain acts constituting the exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subds. (a) & (b)(l).) Consistent with the statutory scheme, ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step procedure. First, the moving defendant must identify all allegations of protected activity and show that the challenged claim arises from that activity. [Citations.] Second, if the defendant makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that each challenged claim based on protected activity is legally sufficient and factually substantiated. [Citation.] Without resolving evidentiary conflicts, the court determines whether the plaintiff s showing, if accepted by the trier of fact, would be sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment. [Citation.] (Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 924, 934.) First Prong: Protected Activity A defendant meets his or her burden on the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis by demonstrating the acts underlying the plaintiff s cause of action fall within one ofthe four categories spelled out in [Code of Civil Procedure] section 425.16, subdivision (e). (Collier v. Harris (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 41, 50-51 (Collier).) That section provides that an act in furtherance of a person s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, orjudicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (e).) These categories define the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute by listing acts which constitute an act in furtherance of a person s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue. (Collier, supra, at p. 51, citing Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (e).) A claim arises from protected activity when that activity underlies or forms the basis for the claim. [Citations.] Critically, the defendant s act underlying the plaintiff s cause of action must itself have been an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech. [Citations.] [T]he mere fact that an action was filed after protected activity took place does not mean the action arose from that activity for the purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. [Citations.] Instead, the focus is on determining what the defendant s activity [is] that gives rise to his or her asserted liability and whether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning. [Citation.] (Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Ca|.5th 1057, 1062-1063 (Park).) [A] claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted. (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1060.) To determine whether the speech constitutes the wrong itself or is merely evidence of a wrong, in ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion, courts should consider the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability. (Id. at p. Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 5 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER In deciding whether the arising from requirement is met, a court considers the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. (Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 670.) [|]f the defendant does not demonstrate this initial prong, the court should deny the anti-SLAPP motion and need not address the second step. (Baharian-Mehr v. Smith (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 265, 271.) Analysis Defendant RHA argues the complaint arises out of the assertion of a lien on Plaintiffs property which constitutes protected activity to satisfy the first prong of the special motion to strike. (See Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 136, 142 [filing a notice of lien constitutes protected activity under section 425.16]; see also O NeiI-Rosales v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1 [acts of obtaining an abstract ofjudgment and recording it as a property lien constitute protected activity under section 425.16, subd. (e)].) In support, defendant RHA relies on paragraph 74 which provides: On April 21, 2021 new evidence was discovered, Defendants JP Morgan Chase unlawfully appropriated and unlawfully collected insurance settlement money $301,037.33. See Exhibit 10 page 2 of 2, line 12. On 2/23/2012 that belong to Plaintiff from Case no. 109-CV156811, in Superior Court in San Jose, California, The Lawsuit against Defendant Rinconada Hills Association, Defendant Chase knowingly and intentionally made false claims of material fact, Unlawfully collected money for the toxic release and construction defects claims plaintiff was entitle to receive and did not because of Defendants JP Morgan Chase and Rinconada gross negligence, fraud upon the court, false representation of material facts, Defendant JP Morgan Chase applied the settlement money in the plaintiffs alleged account and reversed alleged credit of $301,037.33 on a Void Note and Void-Deed. It is not readily apparent from this paragraph whether the complaint, as a whole, arises from protected activity based on assertion of a lien on Plaintiffs property. Instead, paragraph 74 identifies a prior lawsuit against defendant RHA along with purported acts of gross negligence and fraud on the part of RHA and defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank. Nor does defendant RHA refer to any other paragraphs in the complaint in support of its argument or submit declarations that might demonstrate the presence of protected activity in the complaint. (See Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 887 [courts must look beyond pleadings to parties evidentiary submissions on first anti-SLAPP step]; Salma, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1286 [citing declarations to understand whether vague pleading described protected activity].) And while defendant RHA submits an abstract ofjudgment in its request forjudicial notice, it is not clear what connection this exhibit has to allegations in paragraph 74 or elsewhere in the complaint. (See Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 (Allen) [We are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply arguments for the litigants. ],' see also Perry v. City of San Diego (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 172, 188, fn. 8 [ It is not this court s role to connect the dots. ].) In fact, defendant RHA concedes the complaint consists of vague allegations of fraud in connection with the Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 6 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER purchase of Plaintiffs home and the mortgage associated with it. (See Memo of P s & A s at pp. 3:11-12, 6:8- 9.) As a consequence, defendant RHA has also filed a demurrer addressing pleading deficiencies in each cause of action which will be addressed below. In reply, defendant RHA contends Plaintiffs do not raise any substantive opposition to arguments made in support of the special motion to strike. But, the initial burden of establishing protected activity falls on the moving party. Once that showing is made, Plaintiffs must then demonstrate a probability of success on the merits. For reasons stated above, defendant RHA fails to meet its initial burden in showing the complaint arises from protected activity. Second Prong: Probability of Success on the Merits If the court determines that relief is sought based on allegations arising from activity protected by the statute, the second step is reached. There, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that each challenged claim based on protected activity is legally sufficient and factually substantiated. The court, without resolving evidentiary conflicts, must determine whether the plaintiff s showing, if accepted by the trier of fact, would be sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment. If not, the claim is stricken. [Citation.] (Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1043.) As defendant RHA fails to satisfy the first prong, there is no need to address whether Plaintiffs can show probability of success on the merits of their complaint. Therefore, the special motion to strike the complaint is DENIED. Demurrer to the Complaint Defendant RHA demurs to each cause of action in the complaint on grounds they fail to state a valid claim and uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subd. (e), (f).) Meet and Confer Requirement As an initial matter, the court notes counsel for defendant RHA did not fully comply with the meet and confer requirement before filing the demurrer. Before filing a demurrer, a demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the opposing party to determine whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code of Civ. Proc., 430.41, subd. (a).) This conference should occur at least five days before the deadline to file. (Code Civ. Proc, 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 7 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER When filing the demurrer, the demurring party must include a declaration stating either the means by which the demurring party met and conferred with [the other party] and that the party did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer or [the other party] failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.41, subd. (a)(3).) A court s determination that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not a ground to sustain or overrule a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) Here, counsel for defendant RHA submits a declaration stating he met and conferred with plaintiff Ada- Saucedo prior to filing the demurrer and they were unable to come to an informal resolution. (Stogner Decl. at 1-2.) The declaration however does not specify whether defense counsel made any attempt to meet and confer with plaintiff Ronen before filing the motion. As a consequence, the meet and confer efforts were inadequate. That said, a deficient meet and confer is not a ground to sustain or overrule a demurrer. The court therefore will consider the merits of the motion. The court admonishes defense counsel to fully comply with the meet and confer requirement in connection with future filings. Legal Standard In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurer, we are guided by long settled rules. We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading. It admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint; the question of plaintiff s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court. (Committee on Children s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213 214.) The reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [|]t is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. And it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment. (Gregory v. Albertson s, Inc. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 845, 850.) First Cause of Action: Quiet Title To maintain an action to quiet title a plaintiff s complaint must be verified and must include (1) a description of the property including both its legal description and its street address or common designation; (2) the title of plaintiff as to which determination is sought and the basis of the title; (3) the adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought; (4) the date as of which a determination is sought and, if other than the date the complaint is filed, a statement why the determination is sought as of that date; and (5) a prayer for determination of plaintiff s title against the adverse claims. (Bajaras v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24237 at p. *9; see Code Civ. Proc., 761.020.) The purpose of a quiet title action is to settle all conflicting claims to the property and to declare each interest or estate to which the parties are entitled. (See Newman v. Cornelius (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 279, 284.) Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 8 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Defendant RHA persuasively argues there are no facts showing (1) an adverse claim to Plaintiffs title against which a determination is sought; and (Z) the date of which a determination of title is sought. As stated above, Plaintiffs filed an opposition of approximately 44 pages consisting of sections identified as factual allegations, legal argument, and conclusion. Plaintiffs however appear to concede this argument as they fail to address it in their opposition. Nevertheless, as this is the first challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading, the court will grant Plaintiffs an opportunity for leave to amend. (See City of Stockton v. Super. Ct. (2007) 42 Ca|.4th 730, 747 [if the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the pleading in response to a motion challenging the sufficiency of the allegations, leave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness].) Therefore, the demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to NOVEMBER 8, 2021 for failure to state a claim. Second Cause of Action: Damages for Financial Harm The second cause of action is identified as Damages for Financial Harm. Based on the allegations, defendant Bank construes this claim as one for fraud. The elements of fraud are: (1) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 990.) Fraud must be pleaded with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. 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. (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793 (West), citation and quotation marks omitted.) Courts enforce the specificity requirement in consideration of its two purposes. (West, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 793.) The first purpose is to give notice to the defendant with sufficiently definite charges that the defendant can meet them. (|bid.) The second is to permit a court to weed out meritless fraud claims on the basis of the pleadings; thus, the pleading should be sufficient to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud. (|bid.) The second cause of action alleges in part that defendants: (1) misrepresented material facts in the origination and servicing; (2) intentionally presented and recorded false fraudulent instruments; (3) knew or should have known the instruments were fraudulent and void and failed to perform a duty of care; and (4) intended to deceive and exploit Plaintiffs by forging instruments. (See Complaint at 119-122.) The complaint also alleges plaintiff Ronen was intentionally conned, tricked, and maliciously deceived into signing fraudulent documents and instruments by defendant RHA and other defendants. (See Complaint at 35.) Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 9 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Defendant RHA persuasively argues the fraud claim has not been pled with the required specificity to state a cause of action. As stated above, the specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made. Such specificity is lacking with respect to the second cause of action. In addition, specificity is important here where at least eleven (11) known defendants are involved in various roles at different times in this action. Plaintiffs fail to address the specificity argument in their opposition. Accordingly, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to NOVEMBER 8, 2021 for failure to state a claim. Third Cause of Action Injunctive Relief Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of action. [Citations.] A cause of action must exist before a court may grant a request for injunctive relief. (Allen, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 65.) In the third cause of action for injunctive relief, Plaintiffs request an order from the court preventing defendants from engaging in foreclosure proceedings against them. (Complaint at 132.) As stated above, Plaintiffs fail to state any cause of action to support a remedy for injunctive relief. Consequently, the demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to NOVEMBER 8, 2021 for failure to state a claim. Fourth Cause of Action Declaratory Relief Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, which governs actions for declaratory relief, provides: Any person interested under a written instrument , or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. Declaratory relief operates prospectively, serving to set controversies at rest before obligations are repudiated, rights are invaded or wrongs are committed. Thus the remedy is to be used to advance preventive justice, to declare rather than execute rights. (Kirkwood v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter- Insurance Bureau (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 49, 59.) Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the legal and equitable title to the subject property is vested in their name only and the defendants be declared to have no legal or equitable interest in the subject property, no Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 10 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER interest in estate, no rights to title or any interest in the subject property. (Complaint at 138.) As a threshold matter, there is no underlying cause of action to support declaratory relief. (See Shaterian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2011) 829 F. Supp.2d 873, 888 [request for declaratory relief is unavailable absent a viable underlying claim].) Also, as pointed out by defendant RHA, the declaratory relief claim is duplicative of prior causes of action which have been rejected on demurrer. (See Concorde Equity II, LLC v. Miller (9th Cir. 2010) 732 F.Supp.2d 990, 1002 [ Declaratory relief may be unnecessary where an adequate remedy exists under some other cause of action. ]; see also Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass n v. Super. Ct. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1617, 1624 [The availability of another form of relief that is adequate will usuallyjustify refusal to grant declaratory relief. ].) Therefore, the demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to NOVEMBER 8, 2021 for failure to state a claim. Uncertainty Defendant RHA also demurs to each cause of action in the complaint on the ground of uncertainty. Uncertainty is a disfavored ground for demurrer; it is typically sustained only where the pleading is so unintelligible and uncertain that the responding party cannot reasonably respond to or recognize the claims alleged against it. (See Khoury v. Maly s of Ca|., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. (|bid.) [U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant ofthe issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) The operative complaint here is far from a model of clarity. The pleading consists of 43 pages with approximately 142 paragraphs alleged against eleven (11) total defendants. Yet, as the moving papers point out, it is unclear which factual allegations are connected with defendant RHA as the complaint, at times, appears to ramble on from one thing to another. Nor do Plaintiffs identify which causes of action pertain to each defendant. And, while uncertainty is considered a disfavored ground for demurrer, it is readily apparent from this pleading that defendant RHA cannot reasonably respond to any claims alleged against it. That said, the court will allow Plaintiffs an opportunity for leave to amend. Accordingly, the demurrer to each cause of action in the complaint on the ground of uncertainty is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to NOVEMBER 8, 2021. Disposition Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 11 of 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER The special motion to strike the complaint is DENIED. The demurrer to the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to NOVEMBER 8, 2021 on the grounds of failure to state a valid claim and uncertainty. The court will prepare the Order. Printed: 10/22/2021 10/19/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV382740 Page 12 of 12