Liliana Ogannes Kudbalyan vs. City of Rancho Cordova

34-2022-00320315-CU-CR-GDS: Liliana Ogannes Kudbalyan vs. City of Rancho Cordova 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

34-2022-00320315-CU-CR-GDS: Liliana Ogannes Kudbalyan vs. City of Rancho Cordova 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendant City of Rancho Cordova (“Defendant”) for judgment on the pleadings is CONTINUED to October 27, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in this department, so as to allow parties to complete the meet-and-confer requirement.

Plaintiffs Liana Ogannes Kudbalyan and Artur Kudbalyan (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint on May 19, 2022 alleging three causes of action: (1) Due Process Clause U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Excessive Fines Clause Eighth Amendment U.S. Constitution, Article I § 19 California Constitution; (3) Equitable Relief Slander of Title.

Here, Defendant makes its motion for judgment on the pleadings on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and thus all causes of action are barred 2. Alternatively, Plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from pursuing this action as the City’s decision are final and binding 3. Plaintiffs’ slander of title claim is barred by the statute of limitations 4. Plaintiffs forfeited any challenge for failure to preserve the issues by not raising the issues at any hearing before the City.

5. Plaintiffs’ Due Process Claims Fail as a matter of law because: a. Due Process was provided. b. Plaintiffs are barred from seeking a federal remedy because state law provides a remedy c. Alternatively, Fifth Amendment Due Process claim fails as against these local officials. d. Alternatively, no such due process rights under the Fourth or Eighth Amendments 6. The Second cause of action for excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment fails as matter of law 7. Both the first and second cause of action against the entity under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 are insufficiently alleged.

(See Ntc. Mot.)

Notably, Code of Civil Procedure section 439(a) provides that “[b]efore filing a motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320315-CU-CR-GDS: Liliana Ogannes Kudbalyan vs. City of Rancho Cordova 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 53

for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a), emphasis added.) Additionally, the moving party shall file a declaration with the motion stating either “(A) The means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 439(a)(3).)

In support of this motion, Defendant’s counsel simply states: “On February 6, 2025, counsel for the parties briefly discussed the meet and confer counsel for Plaintiff indicating he would review and get back to me. As of the filing of this motion, no response has been provided.” (Whitefleet Decl., ¶ 4.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates that the he has “met and conferred with Defense Counsel in the instant matter concerning an Amendment to the Complaint . . .” (Harris Decl., ¶ 2, emphasis added.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also appears to attach a proposed First Amended Complaint, which he explains, has been amended to “indicate that the payment by Mr. Cooper was as the result of the conduct of Defendant City of Rancho Cordova’s Slander of Title and that such funds should be returned to the extent it constituted the excessive fine provision in violation of the United States Constitution.” (Id., at ¶¶ 3, 5, Exh. 1.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes to the extent that Plaintiffs seek leave to file an amended complaint, such request is not properly raised in opposition to Defendant’s motion other than as an alternative request should the demurrer be sustained in whole or in part. Affirmative relief can only be sought “on motion,” not in opposition to a motion. Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs affirmatively request leave to file an amended complaint, this request is denied without prejudice, as it may only be brought by a properly noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures section 1005(b).

But more importantly for purposes of this motion, upon the Court’s review of the parties’ briefing, it is apparent that the parties have failed to adequately complete the meet-andconfer requirement prior to the filing of this motion. In fact, Defendant’s description of the meet-and-confer effort ends by stating that after “briefly” discussing the matter and upon Plaintiff’s agreement to get back to Defendant, “no response has been provided.” (Whitefleet Decl., ¶ 4.) In contrast, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that the parties’ meet-and-confer session (which is not referenced by date) resulted in Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00320315-CU-CR-GDS: Liliana Ogannes Kudbalyan vs. City of Rancho Cordova 09/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 53

preparing a proposed First Amended Complaint. (Harris Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. 1.) No evidence is presented describing Defendant’s response to the amendments, what they cure and do not cure, and what issues remain for purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Instead, Defendant’s reply simply proceeds to argue that the motion should be granted, and without leave to amend. This does not constitute an adequate meetand-confer process prior to the filing of this motion. While there is no evidence of when the parties’ meet-and-confer sessions regarding Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint occurred, it was incumbent upon both parties to participate in and complete this process in a timely manner prior to the filing of the motion.

Accordingly, the matter is continued for the parties to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference. By no later than October 13, 2025, the parties shall file a joint statement detailing their meet-and-confer attempts addressing each of the issues raised in the motion. The parties shall identify which issues, if any, were resolved by the meet-and-confer process. If the all the issues raised by the motion are resolved, moving party is directed to promptly contact the Court to withdraw the matter.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)