Preview
KATHLEEN C. LYON, CSB # 236224
klyon@asilaw.org
JOSHUAH D. KERBY, CSB #324182
jkerby@asilaw.org
ARONOWITZ SKIDMORE LYON
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
Auburn, California 95603
Telephone: (530) 823-9736
Fax: (530) 823-5241
Attorneys for Jason Jones
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
Robert Nolan Vroege and Martha Elizabeth Case No.: SCV0042732
95603
Vroege, Husband and Wife,
11
LYON
CA
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
823-5241
12 PLAINTIFF,
Corporation
Auburn,
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE
»
SPECIAL AND GENERAL DEMURRER
SKIDMORE
13 V. OF DEFENDANT JASON JONES, TO
(530)
305,
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED
14
Suite
Fax
Charles A. Jones and Mary L. Jones, or their COMPLAINT
Law
successors, as Trustees of the Jones Family
(530)823-9736,
15
Road,
Professional
-
Trust Dated February 24, 1993; Jason Jones Heariue Date: December 12,2019
ARONOWITZ
16 Successor Trustee of the Jones Family Trust Tne: 9:30) 4 i.
Folsom
Dated February 24, 1993; Kingvale LLC, a Dept.: 42
17 California limited liability company; Robert O. Complaint Filed: March 26, 2019
Tel
Auburn
A
Sinnock; Patty Sinnock; and Does | through
18 100, inclusive,
200
19
DEFENDANTS.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones tothe First Amended Complaint
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 00... cccseeseeseessseeseesessesseseesessesecsecsesassassecsecsesscsscsucecsscssssesssaeeasaes
1
Il.LEGAL STANDARD ON DEMURRER 1... ee cececccsssssssseessssesseessesecssecsecsecsessassscessesecsecsecsensenss
2
TIT.LEGAL ANALYSIS occ cececcccecsecsseeseesessesseeseeeseesessessecsseseesaecsecsessacsesseesecsessessecsecseesevass
3
A. Moving Party should be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing in that Plaintiffs’ claims
are not redressable, thus Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint failsto state facts sufficient to
constitute a Cause Of ACHION ..........e
cele eeeeeeescecccccceceecceceeeecttecececceceseseeeessssseccesseeseeeersttsaueeeseeeeraes
3
1. The sole relief that could remedy Plaintiffs’ claims is acquiring property rights over the
10 entire subject road, which includes acquiring easement rights over public property................
3
95603
11
LYON
2. A judgment granting Plaintiffs’ requested easement over Moving Party’s Property would
CA
823-5241
12
Corporation
Auburn,
-
necessarily imply property rights over public property ......0...ccecccccsscsseseeeseeseeseesecseeseeseesseseeas
4
SKIDMORE
13
(530)
305,
3. Itis not possible for Plaintiffs to acquire prescriptive easement or other property rights
14
Suite
Fax
Law
against PUbLIC PLOPELty oo... ee eeceeseeseeeseeesecsseeseeeseeesecssesssesseeesecesecsessaecsseessecseseseceseseseaeeseeatees
5
(530)823-9736,
15
Road,
Professional
-
ARONOWITZ
i.The firstcause of action for “Prescriptive Easement” fails to state facts sufficient to
16
Folsom
constitute a cause of action against any defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10().).........00 5
17
Tel
Auburn
A
18 ii.The second cause of action for “Quiet Title/Declaratory Relief” fails to state facts
200
19 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. §
20 430.10(€).)esccscsscssseesssssvessssseesssssesesssecssssecsssssecesssusessssvsssssseesssuesesssevssssseessssseceessneessssueeecessueesee
6
21 B. Moving Party should be dismissed because there is nonjoinder in that no relief can be granted}
22 unless the United States Government and Union Pacific Railroad are joined in this action... 7
23
1. The first cause of action for “Prescriptive Easement” failsdue to nonjoinder because the
24
United States Government and Union Pacific Railroad are indispensable parties who have
25
not been joined in this action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(d).) ....cceecceeceeeseeeeeeeeteeeteeeteeeaeeees
9
26
27
28
ii
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer ofJason Jones tothe First Amended Complaint
2. The first cause of action for “Quiet Title” fails due to nonjoinder because the United
States Government and Union Pacific Railroad are indispensable parties who have not been
joined in this action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(d).).....cccccccccesscsscessessessescesecsecsecsecseesseseeseess
9
C. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action because on the face of the FAC Plaintiffs expressly states their use of the Property was
permissive rather than hostile ........cccccceccesceseeseescsseseeseesesecsecsecsecsesesacsessecsseassecsesssecscussecasees
10
1. Plaintiffs first cause of action for “Prescriptive Easement” fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(€).) .occcccccccccccceesescesssssesessessenees
1]
10 2. Plaintiffs firstcause of action for “Prescriptive Easement” fails to state facts sufficient to
95603
11 constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(€).) ...cccecccsesssesseeseesseeseessteseesseeeees
11
LYON
CA
823-5241
12
Corporation
Auburn,
TV. CONCLUSION... ececececcccces esscseccsecsecsecnscsaecsecsesesesaesaeseseseeaecseseeseaeesesaeeaeesesiesesesseseeeaeeaees
12
-SKIDMORE
13
(530)
305,
14
Suite
Fax
Law
(530)823-9736,
15
Road,
Professional
»
ARONOWITZ
16
Folsom
17
Tel
Auburn
A
18
200
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer ofJason Jones tothe First Amended Complaint
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
American Alternative Energy Partners Il v. Windridge, Inc.
(1996) 42 Cal Appt S31 casnsesscocnnumnesassnnncnncsoran
simenneemsessnsensasateannsn
tensannunamenesa
samewatn
suanaeassnaness
3
Bowles v. Superior Court
(1955) 44 Cal.2d 574 ooecceccecccesesssceseeeseceseceseceseceseceseceaeseseceeesnaeeeeeaeeeseseseeneceaeeeseeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeaeens
7
Clark v. Redlich
147 Cal. App.2d 500.0...
ceceeceeccesseeseceseceseceseceseceaeceeseeeeeeeeesseceaeceseceseseeseaeesaeeeseeaeceeeeaeeeeseaeeaes
10
Covarrubias v.James
10 (1971) 21 Cal App.3d 129 ooo ec cccccececcsceceseeesseeeseeceeeeceeeceeecneeseaeeeeaeeeseeenaeseseseeeeneeeneeenaeenaes
7
95603
11 Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange
LYON
CA
823-5241
12 CQLOOR) TS2 al Ageelly LOG seesexessascs
sesame
cme nateserate tecerartenon wee ora
eS ORAS 2
Corporation
Auburn,
- SKIDMORE
13 Evans v. City of Berkeley
(530)
305,
14 (2006) 38 Cal 4th Lone
eeccececeeeseessecesecssecseecssecssecesecesesseeseeeeesaessaesssesseeseesseesaeesaeeaeseeseaeeneenss
2
Suite
Fax
Law
(530)823-9736,
15 Everfresh, Inc. v. Goodman
Road,
Professional
-
ARONOWITZ
16 (1955) 131 Cal. App.2d 818 oo. ceceeeeseceeeceeeesnecseceeecseeeeeecseesecsaecsseesseeaeessesseesesseseaeeeesseeaeens
7
Folsom
17 Frantz v.Blackwell
Tel
Auburn
A
18 (1987) 189 Cal. App.3d 91 occ ceecceeccesseceseceseceseceseeeseceneeseeeeecseeeeceaeseseeneeseseaeseneeesereeaeseeseaeeneens
2
200
19 Howard vy.
Oroville School Dist.
20 C1913) 22; Cal Ape 544 nscncerscsnsnemamcamnraacnnsnemamenne
carunenctanrnte MONARO aNOTNCIEKNRRSERENNIREES
5
21 In Reclamation Dist. No. 833 v.American Farms Co
22 (V930) 209 Call.74 crnnenncnnennaniinsnonananamenrnmnannnesnsmennsiantiaoenndsnshiis
shila dibdiih
(AAAS it
RENE ATARI 1STRRGAS 5
23 Los Angeles v. Coffey
24 CLOGG) 248 Cea, A, 2 OT emenenrenenneenainnscnnnnssnanmnsremsimaancsnsnameneinnaion
nis sini
ieRASib Sse 5
25 Mehdizadeh v. Mincer
26 (1996) 46 Cal. App.4th 1296 oo. ccceececesceeeceesecesceseseecsecssesseceeeseceecssssseeseesessessessessessesseseesesenees
10
27 Mosk v. Summerland Spiritualist Asso.
28 (1964) 225 Cal. App.2d 376 ue eeeescecesceceseecesseseseeceeeessscessscesesesescseeessssessseeesessesesenseeneseneens
5
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones to the First Amended Complaint
Oakland Municipal Improvement League v. City of Oakland
OTS) CAL PAC GD errs meen
ccncraemereteneecamiasanem
ens ssn aes Stites RERcth stonominnnane
3
Piedmont Publishing Co.
(1961) 193 Cal App.2d 171 occ cecscssessecssessesseesececssesseesessecsecsesesssseesessecseceeseeeassacsaceaseaeeasees
a
Sackett v. Wyatt
(1973) 32 Cal. App.3d 592 ooo.cecececceesesseeseseseesessecseceeeseesessecseceeeeessessessecsecseceeaeeasesssassaseaseases
2
Sarale v.Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.
(2010) 189 Cal. App.4th 225 ooo ccceccssecseeesesseeseesecsseeeeseesecsecseceeesecsecsecsecseceseeeeeessesaeeaeeasasees
2
Scott v. Thompson
10 (2010) 184 Cal Age. Ath.1506 sscncsssssusannssan
aananen
sewenas
sexsns
si crninnnennns
shaun. aan aORSKTA
ARRNRLIR
RNARARARERR 2
95603
11 Sierra Club, Inc. v. California Coastal Com.
LYON
CA
823-5241
12
Corporation
(1979) 95 Cal. App.3d 495 oo.cccceccccccccesessecsscssesseesecseceesseesecsecseceseesecsecsecsecseeeeeeaeesessessesseeaeeaseatees
8
Auburn,
- SKIDMORE
13 The H.N. & Frances C. Berger Foundation v. Perez
(530)
305,
14 (2013) 218 Cal. App.4th 37 o...ccccecceeccceseceseceseeeseeseeeeecseenseeeseceeeeesseeeaeeeeseeeaeseseeeeneeeeenseenees
2,3
Suite
Fax
Law
(530)823-9736,
15 Washington Mutual Bank v. Blechman
Road,
Professional
-
ARONOWITZ
16 07) TST a EY, BD scx crete wc es cersme eionateaeceen
cannenatstoNnRRC 8
Folsom
17 Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. Screen Gems, Inc.
Tel
Auburn
A
18 (1969) 274 Cal Appi S67. encnnnessinsinsnisitesishainshines
ih ish aisaiicih
ait:ka
Sasa Ab
SANSWE NS TOTS EAeRERTERR
ATER 8
200
19 Statutes
20 Civ. Code §1007 ..cccccccccceccccsscceseeceeecssecceseeesseceeeceseeeeseecsaeeeeeeeseeeeseceeeenseeeeeseeeeneeeeeeeneesneeeneeeeaee
5
21 CGS T1Y, PROG: B89) cnnscisisisitttancnie sess
a thi us eC th TORMENT 7
22 Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30 .....ccccccccccesseceseccesscceseeeeseceeseceeecesececaeeeceeceseeeeseeceeenseeeeeenseceeeeneesnseenaeeaes
2
23 Code: Civ. Proc. § 430.10 1. cccnceennrnnnnconneroriannauenninennencnaumtnansunusvsasnonenssnenssanannanasshssieuhtiadsnantnees
passim
24
25
26
27
28
Vv
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones to the First Amended Complaint
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(d) — (e), Defendant Jason Jones
(“Moving Party’) submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in support of his
general and special demurrer (“Demurrer”) to the first amended complaint filed by Robert
Nolan Vroege and Martha Elizabeth Vroege (“Plaintiffs”) with this Court on September 6, 2019
(the “FAC”), and as to each cause of action, jointly and severally, alleged against Defendants.
After meet and confer, Plaintiffs have dismissed the third and fourth causes of action. Moving
Party addresses the first and second causes of action in this demurrer.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Robert Nolan Vroege and Martha Elizabeth Vroege allege that they are now,
10 and at all times mentioned in Plaintiffs’ FAC were, husband and wife holding title as joint
11 tenants of two parcels of land located in Placer County generally described as Assessor’s Parcel
LYON
95603
12
Corporation
No. 066-100-052 and Assessor’s Parcel No. 066-100-053 (collectively referred to as “Subject
CA
-
823-5241
Auburn,
SKIDMORE
13 Property”). (See FAC 41 for legal description incorporated herein.)
(530)
14
305,
Plaintiffs allege access to Subject Property isover the “Subject Road” which Plaintiffs
Law
Suite
Fax
15 describe as:
Professional
-
(530)823-9736,
Road,
ARONOWITZ
16 located near Kingvale in the unincorporated area of Placer County commencing at the
Folsom
17 Intersection of Donner Pass Road, near the Donner Pass Road Interchange with
A
Highway 80, with Troy Road to an intersection with an unnamed road from where Troy
Tel
Auburn
18 Road goes to the unincorporated area of Troy and the unnamed road continues to a gate
before a railroad crossing, then over the railroad crossing to a turnoff and then over
19
200
United States Government Land to the Subject Property. The Subject Road passes
through and accesses public and private lands, including the lands of Defendants.
20
21 (FAC, § 2.)
22 Moving Party is a part-owner of the property known as APN 066-320-007-000 over
23 which the Subject Road passes (“Moving Party’s Property”). Moving Party’s Property does not
24 connect to the Subject Property — land of the United States Government (the “Government”)
25 and of Union Pacific Railroad (““UPRR”) separates Moving Party’s Property from the Subject
26 Property. In fact, attached as “Exhibit 2” to the FAC is an “aerial photo illustrating in bold how
27 the Subject Road continues over United States Government land to the Subject Property.” FAC,
28 {2.
1
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones to the First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he only reasonable access to the Subject Property is the Subject
Road and that “[w]ithout access to the Subject Road, the Subject Property is land locked.” FAC,
q8.
Il. LEGAL STANDARD ON DEMURRER
The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer, on the
ground that there is a defect or misjoinder of parties or the complaint does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which grounds appear on the face of the complaint and
from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice. (Code of Civ.
Proc. § 430.10(d) and (e).) Plaintiff must set forward “the essential facts of his case with
10 reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [defendants] with the nature,
i source and extent of his cause of action.” (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v.
LYON
95603
12
Corporation
Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.) The court does not assume the truth
CA
»
823-5241
Auburn,
SKIDMORE
13 of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of facts or law. (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38
(530)
14
305,
Cal.4th 1, 6.) Such an objection isproperly taken by demurrer where the defect appears on the
Law
Suite
Fax
15 face of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a).) The “face of the complaint” includes
Professional
-
(530)823-9736,
Road,
ARONOWITZ
16 matters shown in exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189
Folsom
17 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) Facts appearing in exhibits or facts judicially noticeable take precedence
A
Tel
Auburn
18 over contradictory or inconsistent allegations in the complaint. (Sarale v. Pacific Gas & Elec.
19 Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 225, 245; Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) Ifa
200
20 complaint is found defective and there appears no reasonable probability that the defects can be
21 cured by amendment, the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend. (Sackett v.
22 Wyatt (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 592, 603.)
23 Additionally, “[w]here the complaint shows the plaintiff does not possess the substantive
24 right or standing to prosecute the action, ‘itis vulnerable to a general demurrer on the ground
25 that itfails to state a cause of action.’” (The H.N. & Frances C. Berger Foundation v. Perez
26 (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 37, 43.) “Lack of standing is a fatal jurisdictional defect that requires
27 judgment against the plaintiff.” (Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1510.)
28 ///
2
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones to the First Amended Complaint
Il. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Moving Party should be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing in that
Plaintiffs’ claims are not redressable, thus Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint
fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
Plaintiffs lack standing because none of Plaintiffs’ claims are redressable. The claims
are not redressable because an individual may not obtain an easement or other property rights
over government property, which is the sole relief that could remedy Plaintiffs’ claims and
which rights would be necessarily implied if Plaintiffs were granted an easement over Moving
Party’s Property for ingress and egress to the Subject Property. As such, even if all facts alleged
are taken as true, Plaintiffs’ lack of standing dictate that each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action fail
10 for inability to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
11 “Standing to sue — the real party in interest requirement — goes to the existence of a
LYON
95603
12
Corporation
cause of action, 1.e., whether the plaintiff has a right to relief.” (American Alternative Energy
CA
»
823-5241
Auburn,
SKIDMORE
13 Partners II v. Windridge, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 551, 559; see also, Oakland Municipal
(530)
14
305,
Improvement League v. City of Oakland (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 165, 170 [‘The right to relief...
Law
Suite
Fax
15 goes to the existence of a cause of action’’].) IfPlaintiffs have no right to relief, then they have
Professional
-
(530)823-9736,
Road,
ARONOWITZ
16 no standing and, in turn, fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (The H.N. &
Folsom
17 Frances C. Berger Foundation v. Perez, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 43.)
A
Tel
18
Auburn
1. The sole relief that could remedy Plaintiffs’ claims is acquiring property
rights over the entire subject road, which includes acquiring easement rights
19
200
over public property
20 Here, the sole relief that could remedy Plaintiffs’ claims is acquiring easement or other
21 property rights over the entire Subject Road, for which Plaintiffs’ pled in their original
22 Complaint. While Plaintiffs have amended their original complaint to evade demurrer, the FAC
23 nonetheless acknowledges that rights to the entire Subject Road is their only adequate remedy;
24 the FAC alleges, “[t]he only reasonable access to the Subject Property is the Subject Road” and
25 “lwlithout access to the Subject Road, the Subject Property is land locked.” (FAC, 8.)
26 Plaintiffs do not allege that access over just the portion of the Subject Road that crosses Moving
27 Party’s Property would remedy their claims — itwould not.
28 //
3
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones to the FirstAmended Complaint
Moreover, travelling over the Government property that separates Moving Party’s
Property from the Subject Property is necessary to achieve ingress and egress to the Subject
Property. Plaintiffs acknowledge this fact in paragraph 11 of the FAC where Plaintiffs allege,
“Plaintiffs used the Subject Road over these lands along with the lands of the defendants
during the prescriptive period.” (FAC, 411 [bold and italics added].) The necessity of travelling
over public property is further acknowledged and even illustrated in “Exhibit 2” to the FAC,
which contains an “aerial photo illustrating in bold how the Subject Road continues over
United States Government land to the Subject Property.” (FAC, §2 [bold and italics added].)
Because ingress and egress to the Subject Property clearly requires Plaintiffs to utilize the
10 Subject road over the lands of the Government along with the lands of the defendants,
11 Plaintiffs’ sole remedy isto obtain rights over the entire Subject Road, which includes obtaining
LYON
95603
12
Corporation
easement rights against the United States Government.
CA
-
823-5241
Auburn,
SKIDMORE
13 2. A judgment granting Plaintiffs’ requested easement over Moving Party’s
Property would necessarily imply property rights over public property
(530)
14
305,
Law
Suite
Fax
15 A judgment granting Plaintiffs the requested easement rights “to use the Subject Road
Professional
-
(530)823-9736,
Road,
ARONOWITZ
16 for ingress and egress to the Subject Property over the lands of Defendants” (FAC, Prayer 1)
Folsom
17 would necessarily imply that Plaintiffs have easement rights over the public property portions of
A
Tel
18
Auburn
the Subject Road. This implication arises because Moving Party’s Property and the Subject
19 Property are not connected — there is a very large stretch of public property between the two, as
200
20 illustrated in “Exhibit 2” to the FAC. Plaintiffs cannot enter or exit the Subject Property via
21 Moving Party’s Property without travelling across public land. Therefore, if Plaintiffs were
22 granted easement rights over Moving Party’s Property for ingress and egress to the Subject
23 Property, those rights must also imply the right to travel over the public property that separates
24 Moving Party’s Property from the Subject Property or else the judgment for Plaintiffs against
25 Moving Party’s Property would be ineffective as Plaintiffs could never get to the Subject
26 Property from Moving Party’s Property.
27 /I/
28 ///
4
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones to the FirstAmended Complaint
3. It is not possible for Plaintiffs to acquire prescriptive easement or other
property rights against public property
While Plaintiffs’ sole remedy requires obtaining easement or other property rights over
the entire Subject Road, itis not possible for Plaintiffs to obtain such relief because the Subject
Road includes government property. According to Civil Code section 1007:
. nO possession by any person, firm or corporation no matter how long continued of
any land, water, water right, easement, or other property whatsoever dedicated to a
public use by a public utility, or dedicated to or owned by the state or any public entity,
shall ever ripen into any title, interest or right against the owner thereof.
(Civ. Code § 1007.)
California case law reinforces this point. In Reclamation Dist. No. 833 v. American
10 Farms Co (1930) 209 Cal. 74, 81, for example, the Plaintiff, a public corporation, sought
11
LYON
95603
injunctive relief “on the theory that defendant’s use of [plaintiff's] works may ripen into an
12
Corporation
easement.” The California Supreme Court denied the injunctive relief on the grounds that such
CA
-
823-5241
Auburn,
SKIDMORE
13 relief was unnecessary because private rights may not be acquired by prescription in or to
(530)
14
305,
property owned by the District, which is devoted to public use.” (/d.; see also, Mosk vy.
Law
Suite
Fax
15
Professional
Summerland Spiritualist Asso. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 376, 381 [“It is settled that property held
-
(530)823-9736,
Road,
ARONOWITZ
16 for public use cannot be acquired by adverse possession”; see also, Howard v. Oroville School
Folsom
Dist. (1913) 22 Cal.App. 544, 551 [There can be no adverse holding of property owned by the
A
Tel
Auburn
18 government which will deprive the public of the right thereto, or give title to the adverse
19 claimant, or create a titleby virtue of the statute of limitations’’]; see also, Los Angeles v. Coffey
200
20 (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 121, 125 [due to Cal. Civ. Code § 1007 property transfer to
21 government ownership causes occupier’s possessory rights to “‘no longer ripen into title but
22 automatically die on the vine”’].)
23 i. The first cause of action for “Prescriptive Easement” fails to state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against any defendant.
24 (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)
25 Moving Party incorporates the above Section A as though fully set forth herein.
26 In the firstcause of action, Plaintiffs claim:
27 “Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have used the Subject Road for ingress and
egress over the lands of Defendants and Does 1-50 and that use has been actual,
28 notorious, open, hostile and adverse for a period of five years or more. Plaintiffs’ actual,
notorious, open, hostile and adverse use of the Subject Road was continuous from 2004
5
Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities ISO Demurrer of Jason Jones to the FirstAmended Complaint
for successive prescriptive periods. Plaintiffs’ prescriptive easement, without
considering