Gordon vs. Gordon

With regards to egregious conduct, the Complaint alleges that Defendant caused Plaintiff harm by falsely promising that he would build her a casita on his property and take care of her, which caused her to move to his home and suffer a financial emergency. Also, according to the Complaint: Plaintiff spent her money from her savings account to stay in an RV, where she suffered extreme heat and breathing issues. (Compl., ¶ 57.) Defendant restricted Plaintiff’s access to his house, placing a padlock on the property entrance gate, and disregarded her health needs. (Compl., ¶¶ 57, 58.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of Defendant’s conduct. (Compl., ¶ 60.)

Defendant also argues that the first cause of action is barred by the four-year statute of limitations pursuant to Section 15657.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. More specifically, Defendant argues that the cause of action is time barred because some of the acts alleged in the Complaint occurred more than four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

Section 15657.7 provides, “An action for damages pursuant to Sections 15657.5 and 15657.6 for financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult, as defined in Section 15610.30, shall be commenced within four years after the plaintiff discovers or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered, the facts constituting the financial abuse.”

A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. (Boy Scouts of America Nat. Foundation v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 428, 438.) “In order for the bar to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint.” (Id. at 438-439.)

“Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110).

Here, Plaintiff’s claim does not appear to be time-barred on the face of the Complaint. Defendant argues that certain instances of conduct alleged in the Complaint, such as opening a credit card in Plaintiff’s name in 2005, and again in 2019 (Compl., ¶ 40) are time-barred. But regardless of when these acts were discovered, there are other instances of conduct that occurred within the last few years. For example, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant took out a secured loan of $51,567 under Plaintiff’s name in January 2024 without the Plaintiff’s knowledge and/or consent. (Compl., ¶ 40.)

Plaintiff also alleges that in 2025, she moved to Defendant’s home on the false promise that Defendant would build a “casita” on his property for Defendant, and under the promise that he would take care of Plaintiff who had glaucoma. (Compl., ¶¶ 53, 54.) Plaintiff’s allegations of neglect and abandonment and his failure to take care of her occurred in 2025.

The first cause of action does not appear to be time-barred from the face of the Complaint.

In sum, the allegations in the first cause of action are sufficient at the pleading stage.

2nd C/A (constructive fraud)

Among other things, Defendant argues that the second cause of action for constructive fraud fails because the Complaint does not allege such with the required

particularity, including as to the required element of a fiduciary relationship.

Defendant appears to be correct. The Complaint does not appear to allege sufficient facts to show a fiduciary duty.

“The allegation of a fiduciary relationship must be supported by either a contract, or a relationship that imposes it as a matter of law.” (Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1558). “The mere allegation that [Defendant] assumed fiduciary duties to [Plaintiff] is a legal conclusion, not a well-pled fact.” (Id.)

“Fiduciary duties are imposed by law in certain technical, legal relationships such as those between partners or joint venturers, husbands and wives, guardians and wards, trustees and beneficiaries, principals and agents, and attorneys and clients.” (GAB Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Servs., Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 409, 416.)

Plaintiff argues in her Opposition that paragraphs 63 and 64 sets forth the elements for constructive fraud, including a breach of the Defendant’s fiduciary duty to Plaintiff. However, paragraph 63 of the Complaint states: “These actions by the Defendant have caused Plaintiff to suffer and incur financial loss and hardship and inflicted upon her including severe mental suffering within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.53, pursuant to which the aforementioned actions and conduct of Defendant amount to abuse of an elder pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.07.” (Compl., ¶ 63.)

Paragraph 64 states: “As shown above, Defendant engaged in a scheme to take advantage of the Plaintiff, wrongfully isolated and improperly manipulated Plaintiff in carrying out the fraudulent financial actions as noted above amounted to a breach of the special relationship that existed and was a breach of Defendant’s fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, which resulted in substantial financial loss to Plaintiff in a sum not less than $100,000, as well as great pain, humiliation, mental anguish, severe emotional distress and physical distress and other injuries in mind and body to Plaintiff, causing him damage in a sum according to proof at the time of trial.” (Compl., ¶ 64).

While Plaintiff

references a “special relationship”, no fiduciary duty is alleged.

Plaintiff does not explain in her Opposition how the facts as alleged gives rise to a fiduciary duty.

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the second cause of action, with leave to amend.

3rd C/A (fraud)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to plead the elements of fraud with the requisite specificity and also that this cause of action is time-barred.

With regards to the requisite specificity, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s fiancé and Defendant entered into a contract on 2/3/21 whereby Plaintiff’s fiancé advanced Defendant $100,000 to build a casita on Defendant’s property with the understanding that Plaintiff and her fiancé would move in. As Defendant points out however, the money was lent by the fiancé, who is not a party in this action.

With regards to statements made to Plaintiff, the Complaint alleges that on 4/28/22 and 5/7/22, Defendant emailed Plaintiff detailed blueprints to confirm that the $100,000 given to him was for the construction of a guest house on his property where Plaintiff would live. (Compl., ¶ 13.) This allegation sufficiently alleges how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. (Lazar, 12 Cal.4th at 645 [re the requirements for specifically pleading how, when, where, to whom and by what means the misrepresentations occurred].)

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to plead reliance/damages because she did not lend him the $100,000, and despite the allegation that he tried to “force the sale of his elder mother’s property”, Plaintiff never actually sold her home. As noted in her Opposition papers, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was forced to purchase an RV (which was parked on the Defendant’s property) where Defendant became increasingly verbally abusive, neglectful, and emotionally harmful to the Plaintiff. (See,

e.g., Compl., ¶¶ 56-58.) The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff moved into Defendant’s property after he represented that he could take care of her and that she would have a casita to live in, but after moving into his property, ultimately faced an immediate emergency of finding a place to live and “dipped into her life savings to purchase an RV and parked it on her Defendant’s property, where Plaintiff then lived for approximately three months.” (Compl., ¶ 18.) The court finds that the Complaint’s allegations sufficiently establish intent, reliance and damages to overcome the demurrer at the pleading stage. Plaintiff has adequately plead fraud to overcome the demurrer.

With regards to the statute of limitations, an action for fraud must be commenced within three years after the plaintiff discovered or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered, the facts constituting the fraud. (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373; Code Civ. Proc., § 338(d).)

Defendant argues that this claim is time-barred because the alleged instances of the promise made in 2021, as well as some of the acts of opening credit cards/loans in Plaintiff’s name, occurred more than four years prior to the commencement of this action.

The representation to Plaintiff that he could take care of Plaintiff if she moved to his home occurred “in late 2024 / early 2025.” (Compl., ¶ 15.) Plaintiff also alleges that she did not discover the fraud until 2025. (See, e.g., Compl., ¶¶ 6, 29.)

The court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding discovery are sufficient at the pleading stage, and that the claim does not appear to be time-barred on the face of the Complaint.

Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED as to the third case of action.

4th C/A (quiet title)

A claim for quiet title must be verified and include certain information, including a legal description if the property is real property. (Code Civ. Proc. § 761.020.)

The complaint shall be verified and shall include all of the following: Here, the Complaint is unverified and does not contain a legal description.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the fourth cause of action.

Plaintiff is GRANTED 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND to correct the noted deficiencies.

Defendant to give notice.

2. CMC

The action is not at-issue and in light of the ruling on demurrer, the court CONTINUES the Case Management Conference to November 16, 2026 at 10:00 am in Dept. W8. All appearing parties SHALL file and serve a timely case management statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369.

Plaintiff to give notice.

12 Kim vs. Jetema USA Demurrer (re First Amended Cross-Complaint) Inc. Anti SLAPP Motion

1. Demurrer

The court SUSTAINS Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant SAE RO MI KIM‘s (“Kim”) general demurrer to the entire First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) filed by JETEMA USA INC (“Jetema”) without leave to amend.

15