On May 04, 2018 a
Ruling 02/02/2021 - Ruling
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lupe Navarro As Successor In Interest To The Estate Of Nellie Navarro,
Navarro, Lupe Castro,
and
1 Red Investments, Inc., A California Corporation,
Barton Bruner, Trustee Of The Pilchard Trust Dated 3 31 03,
Chapos Tacos De Tijuana, Inc., A California Corporation,
Cordova, Dinorah,
Cordova, Edgar,
Davis, Theresa,
Hagberg, Shelley,
Karen Lowe, Trustee Ofthe Lowe Trust Dated 5 2 03,
Katherine A Lowe, Trustee Of The William H & Katherine A Lowe Living Trust Est 8 2 05,
Redwood Trust Deed Services, Inc., A California Corporation,
Simonse, Patrice,
for 26-CV Other Real Property-Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of Kern County.
Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Kern
Bakersfield Department 11
Date: 02/02/2021 BCV-18-101087
NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL
Courtroom Staff
Honorable: David R. Lampe Clerk: Veronica D. Lancaster
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: RULING ON (1) DEFENDANTS HAGBERG, DAVIS, SIMONSE,
BRUNER (T'EE OF THE PILCHARD TRUST), LOWE (T'EE OF WILLIAM H. & KATHERINE A.
LOWE LIV. TRUST), AND KATHERINE LOWE (T'EE OF THE WILLIAM & KATHERINE LOWE TRUST),
AND KAREN LOWE'S (T'EE OF LOWE TRUST) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; AND (2) PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS; HERETOFORE SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 25, 2021
RULING:
The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on January 25, 2021, and having fully
considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as
follows:
The Court denies Defendants Hagberg, Davis, Simonse, Bruner (Trustee of the Pilchard Trust), Katherine Lowe
(Trustee of William H. & Katherine A. Lowe Liv. Trust), and Karen Lowe (Trustee of the Lowe Trust)’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Preliminarily, Plaintiffs’ purported opposition to Defendants’ motion raises several procedural problems. California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(e) requires the party opposing a motion for summary judgment to file a memorandum,
a separate statement, and evidence in opposition. Plaintiffs filed an opposition separate statement, but failed to
file an opposition memorandum or evidence, instead filing their own “Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment” and
treating it as opposition. While this approach does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c or Rule
3.1350, collectively, Plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence and authority to permit the Court to consider both
motions on their merits.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether
or not the deeds pertaining to 552 Pepper Drive and 307 Cooley Drive are void and thus subject to Plaintiffs’ quiet
title claims. More specifically, there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the Navarros were
defrauded in the inception by the Cordova Defendants, who Plaintiffs allege duped them into signing grant deeds
to these properties in place of listing agreements. Furthermore, there are triable issues of material fact as to
Defendants’ contention that the Plaintiffs were negligent by misplaced confidence in the Cordova Defendants and
Plaintiffs’ contention that the moving Defendants were negligent. Both are questions of fact and cannot be
determined as a matter of law.
The Court grants Defendants’ alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the seventh cause of action to
quiet title as to 813 Pepper Drive. Defendants have met their burden as the moving parties, demonstrating
Plaintiffs’ sale of this property to the Cordova Defendants is a voidable transaction as opposed to a potentially void
transaction and that they are bona fide encumbrancers, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the Plaintiffs to
raise a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden, offering no evidence suggesting the
MINUTES
Page 1 of 3
NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL BCV-18-101087
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 2/2/2021
Defendants as lenders were on notice of Plaintiffs’ claim. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s ruling as to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court denies the motion as to 552 Pepper Drive and 307 Cooley
Drive.
Plaintiffs request a continuance to conduct additional discovery, which the Court declines based on Plaintiffs’
failure to meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h). Where the party opposing a motion for
summary judgment shows via “affidavits submitted in opposition…that facts essential to justify opposition may
exist but cannot, for the reasons stated, be presented[,]” the trial court the court shall deny the motion” or
continue it for a reasonable period, or “make any other order as may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(h); see also
Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.) Plaintiffs fail to present the requisite declaration of
counsel discussing how and why a continuance for additional discovery would assist them.
Defendants request judicial notice of the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and the Court’s September 14, 2020
Minute Order. The Court grants the request for judicial notice in accordance with People v. Harbolt (1997) 61
Cal.App.4th 123, 126-127, which discussed the limited purposes for which a court may take judicial notice of a
court record.
The Court sustains Defendants’ objections, filed on September 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021, to the Declarations of
Lupe Navarro and Attorney Brumfield.
Defendants will prepare an order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature and pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.
Copy of minutes/ruling mailed to all parties as stated on the attached certificate of mailing.
FUTURE HEARINGS:
February 11, 2021 1:30 PM Mandatory Settlement Conference - Further
Bakersfield Department 1
Friedman - Retired, Gary T.
March 01, 2021 9:00 AM Jury Trial
Lampe, David R.
Bakersfield Department 11
March 01, 2021 9:00 AM Final Case Management Conference
Lampe, David R.
Bakersfield Department 11
MINUTES
Page 2 of 3
NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL BCV-18-101087
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 2/2/2021
NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL
BCV-18-101087
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned, of said Kern County, certify: That I am a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Kern, that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, I reside in or am employed in
the County of Kern, and not a party to the within action, that I served the Minutes dated February 02, 2021 attached
hereto on all interested parties and any respective counsel of record in the within action by depositing true copies thereof,
enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid and placed for collection and mailing on this date, following
standard Court practices, in the United States mail at Bakersfield California addressed as indicated on the mailing list
below.
Date of Mailing: February 02, 2021
Place of Mailing: Bakersfield, CA
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Tamarah Harber-Pickens
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Date: February 02, 2021
By: Veronica Lancaster
Veronica Lancaster, Deputy Clerk
MAILING LIST
EDGAR CORDOVA JARED CALVIN MARSHALL
18417 BUCKAROO DRIVE 8080 NORTH PALM AVENUE THIRD FLOOR
BAKERSFIELD CA 93314 FRESNO CA 93711
DINORAH CORDOVA ROBERT H BRUMFIELD
2340 NILES STREET STE C LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT H BRUMFIELD
BAKERSFIELD CA 93306 1810 WESTWIND DRIVE SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301
Certificate of Mailing
Page 3 of 3
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 11 Date: 02/02/2021 BCV-18-101087 NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL Courtroom Staff Honorable: David R. Lampe Clerk: Veronica D. Lancaster NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: RULING ON (1) DEFENDANTS HAGBERG, DAVIS, SIMONSE, BRUNER (T'EE OF THE PILCHARD TRUST), LOWE (T'EE OF WILLIAM H. & KATHERINE A. LOWE LIV. TRUST), AND KATHERINE LOWE (T'EE OF THE WILLIAM & KATHERINE LOWE TRUST), AND KAREN LOWE'S (T'EE OF LOWE TRUST) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; AND (2) PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS; HERETOFORE SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 25, 2021 RULING: The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on January 25, 2021, and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows: The Court denies Defendants Hagberg, Davis, Simonse, Bruner (Trustee of the Pilchard Trust), Katherine Lowe (Trustee of William H. & Katherine A. Lowe Liv. Trust), and Karen Lowe (Trustee of the Lowe Trust)’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Preliminarily, Plaintiffs’ purported opposition to Defendants’ motion raises several procedural problems. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(e) requires the party opposing a motion for summary judgment to file a memorandum, a separate statement, and evidence in opposition. Plaintiffs filed an opposition separate statement, but failed to file an opposition memorandum or evidence, instead filing their own “Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment” and treating it as opposition. While this approach does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c or Rule 3.1350, collectively, Plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence and authority to permit the Court to consider both motions on their merits. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether or not the deeds pertaining to 552 Pepper Drive and 307 Cooley Drive are void and thus subject to Plaintiffs’ quiet title claims. More specifically, there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the Navarros were defrauded in the inception by the Cordova Defendants, who Plaintiffs allege duped them into signing grant deeds to these properties in place of listing agreements. Furthermore, there are triable issues of material fact as to Defendants’ contention that the Plaintiffs were negligent by misplaced confidence in the Cordova Defendants and Plaintiffs’ contention that the moving Defendants were negligent. Both are questions of fact and cannot be determined as a matter of law. The Court grants Defendants’ alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the seventh cause of action to quiet title as to 813 Pepper Drive. Defendants have met their burden as the moving parties, demonstrating Plaintiffs’ sale of this property to the Cordova Defendants is a voidable transaction as opposed to a potentially void transaction and that they are bona fide encumbrancers, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the Plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden, offering no evidence suggesting the MINUTES Page 1 of 3 NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL BCV-18-101087 MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 2/2/2021 Defendants as lenders were on notice of Plaintiffs’ claim. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s ruling as to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court denies the motion as to 552 Pepper Drive and 307 Cooley Drive. Plaintiffs request a continuance to conduct additional discovery, which the Court declines based on Plaintiffs’ failure to meet their burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h). Where the party opposing a motion for summary judgment shows via “affidavits submitted in opposition…that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for the reasons stated, be presented[,]” the trial court the court shall deny the motion” or continue it for a reasonable period, or “make any other order as may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(h); see also Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.) Plaintiffs fail to present the requisite declaration of counsel discussing how and why a continuance for additional discovery would assist them. Defendants request judicial notice of the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and the Court’s September 14, 2020 Minute Order. The Court grants the request for judicial notice in accordance with People v. Harbolt (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 123, 126-127, which discussed the limited purposes for which a court may take judicial notice of a court record. The Court sustains Defendants’ objections, filed on September 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021, to the Declarations of Lupe Navarro and Attorney Brumfield. Defendants will prepare an order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature and pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312. Copy of minutes/ruling mailed to all parties as stated on the attached certificate of mailing. FUTURE HEARINGS: February 11, 2021 1:30 PM Mandatory Settlement Conference - Further Bakersfield Department 1 Friedman - Retired, Gary T. March 01, 2021 9:00 AM Jury Trial Lampe, David R. Bakersfield Department 11 March 01, 2021 9:00 AM Final Case Management Conference Lampe, David R. Bakersfield Department 11 MINUTES Page 2 of 3 NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL BCV-18-101087 MINUTES FINALIZED BY: Veronica Lancaster ON: 2/2/2021 NAVARRO ET AL VS CORDOVA ET AL BCV-18-101087 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned, of said Kern County, certify: That I am a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Kern, that I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, I reside in or am employed in the County of Kern, and not a party to the within action, that I served the Minutes dated February 02, 2021 attached hereto on all interested parties and any respective counsel of record in the within action by depositing true copies thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid and placed for collection and mailing on this date, following standard Court practices, in the United States mail at Bakersfield California addressed as indicated on the mailing list below. Date of Mailing: February 02, 2021 Place of Mailing: Bakersfield, CA I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Tamarah Harber-Pickens CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Date: February 02, 2021 By: Veronica Lancaster Veronica Lancaster, Deputy Clerk MAILING LIST EDGAR CORDOVA JARED CALVIN MARSHALL 18417 BUCKAROO DRIVE 8080 NORTH PALM AVENUE THIRD FLOOR BAKERSFIELD CA 93314 FRESNO CA 93711 DINORAH CORDOVA ROBERT H BRUMFIELD 2340 NILES STREET STE C LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT H BRUMFIELD BAKERSFIELD CA 93306 1810 WESTWIND DRIVE SUITE 100 BAKERSFIELD CA 93301 Certificate of Mailing Page 3 of 3