arrow left
arrow right
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
  • Vroege, Robert Nolan et al vs. Jones, Charles A.,Trustee of Jones Family Trust et al Real Property: Other (26) document preview
						
                                

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